Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Justice

The Secretary of State was asked—

Magistrates: Mandatory Retirement Age

Edward Timpson: What plans he has to raise the mandatory retirement age for magistrates.

Chris Philp: The Ministry of Justice has been running a consultation on increasing the retirement age for judges and magistrates. The consultation closed on 16 October. Over 1,000 responses were received and we will respond formally very shortly.

Edward Timpson: My hon. Friend is very aware of my private Member’s Bill to raise the retirement age of magistrates to 75, which has been bumbling along the bottom of the Friday Order Paper for a couple of months now. Bearing in mind that his own consultation on this increasingly urgent matter closed over two weeks ago, is he able to give me and many hundreds of magistrates, who have been forced to give up dispensing justice at a time when we can least afford to lose them, some hope that he will be able to legislate at the earliest opportunity, either through my Bill or through other means, so we can get that on the statute book as soon as we can?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend is quite right. We are losing something like 1,000 magistrates a year as they turn 70, often very experienced magistrates who still have a great deal to offer the justice system. The consultation had two options: raising the age to 72 or to 75. I strongly commend my hon. Friend for his patience, persistence and perseverance in trying to get his private Member’s Bill through, often in the face of somewhat unfortunate headwinds, on private Members’ Bill Fridays. This is an urgent issue. As soon as we have formulated a response to the consultation, we will certainly be looking to legislate via whatever vehicle is available as quickly as we possibly can.

The Rule of Law

Alison Thewliss: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on upholding the rule of law.

John Nicolson: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on upholding the rule of law.

Robert Buckland: Naturally, I do not disclose the details of private conversations I have with Cabinet colleagues, but they, and everybody else who cares to listen, should be in no doubt that I am, and will continue to be, a very active Lord Chancellor in supporting the rule of law, using the authority of my office to advise, to warn and to encourage. I am absolutely committed, under the oath I took, to my constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law.

Alison Thewliss: The Lord Chancellor said he would resign if he saw the rule of law being broken in a way that he found unacceptable. Ten days ago, more than 800 of some of the most senior legal figures across the UK wrote to the Prime Minister stating that attacks on the legal profession by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary undermine the rule of law. When he read that letter and saw the signatories, did he think things had got to the stage of being unacceptable?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Lady is eliding two issues. I was talking in early September about the United Kingdom (Internal Market) Bill. Since then, the Government made important concessions in this House to qualify the coming into force of those provisions, and set out examples where, to all intents and purposes, the EU would have acted in clear bad faith. She is eliding the two issues, I hope inadvertently. When it comes to defending the legal profession, I have already publicly stated my steadfast support for the profession that I am honoured to be a part of.

John Nicolson: Former Supreme Court Justice Lord Dyson described the Government’s toxic rhetoric on the legal profession as “irresponsible”, “dangerous” and “inflammatory,” and
“the language of a demagogue.”
The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, said the Government’s language is indecent and typifies
“precisely this sort of ugly authoritarianism that the rule of law is called upon to counter.”
What discussions has the Lord Chancellor had with the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary about those very serious allegations from senior lawyers?

Robert Buckland: As I said in response to the previous question, I do not disclose details of discussions I have with Cabinet colleagues. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and everybody else that people should be in no doubt about my steadfast defence not just of the judiciary but of an independent legal profession. We have, of course, seen criticism of lawyers throughout the ages. I respect the views of members of my profession, but we should put things into their full context.

Bob Neill: I welcome what the Lord Chancellor said about defending the legal profession and I join him in that. It is an honourable profession and I have always found that those I dealt with at the Bar and solicitors generally left their politics behind when they went to argue the case for their client, which they must do without fear or favour. Equally, will he recognise that when he and I were doing an awful lot of legal aid work in practice, the former leader of the Labour party and then Prime Minister   was describing legal aid lawyers as fat cats? No one has entirely clean hands on this and perhaps we all ought to moderate our language when dealing with the professions.

Robert Buckland: The Chair of the Justice Committee puts the matter into its fullest context. Sadly, from Shakespeare onwards, and probably before, lawyers have come in for criticism. The question is how far that goes. We live in a lively democracy and none of us is above criticism, but I say to him that in all my years in practice, I did precisely what he did, which was to leave my politics at home whenever I went into chambers or into the courtroom.

David Lammy: Our country is a country that prides itself on the rule of law. Without lawyers, the rule of law would collapse. In recent weeks, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have launched repeated attacks on lawyers representing asylum seekers. Even after a man launched a knife attack on an immigration solicitor days after the Home Secretary condemned “activist lawyers”, the Government continue to pour petrol on the fire. Does the Lord Chancellor agree with his colleagues’ characterisation of legal professionals as “activist lawyers”, or does he have the courage to publicly condemn that vile rhetoric?

Robert Buckland: The right hon. Gentleman will know that on two occasions in public forums, I have made my defence of lawyers very clear and made it clear that physical and verbal attacks and the other types of threat that we might see are entirely unacceptable. He talks rightly about a very serious case that is ongoing—I do not think it would be right for me to comment directly upon it—but we all know the context within which we operate. I can assure him that I will continue in my resolute defence of lawyers. I will say this: I think there are times when there is a legitimate debate to be had, and I firmly believe that lawyers who are passionate about politics are best advised, if they wish to pursue politics, to do as he and I did, which is to get elected and pursue politics here or in other democratic forums.

Joanna Cherry: The Home Secretary’s remit includes responsibility for making sure that all our communities are kept safe and secure. On 7 September, a man wielding a knife entered an immigration lawyers’ office in London and launched a violent, racist attack. In mid-September, counter-terrorist police from SO15 warned the Home Secretary that it was suspected that a far-right extremist had attempted to carry out a terrorist attack at a solicitors’ firm in London, yet in early October at the Tory party conference, she went on to intensify her anti-lawyer rhetoric. I am not asking the Lord Chancellor to disclose the precise details of private conversations, but can he confirm newspaper reports that prior to her speech, he warned the Home Secretary against using this sort of language? If she will not listen to him, will he consider his position?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for the way in which she put her question, but I have to repeat again that it would be invidious of me to repeat private conversations. She knows that I have been publicly on the record twice in the last month making my position very clear and condemning attacks. I think she would agree that we all need to be careful, as lawyers, about a matter that is currently sub judice and  within the criminal process. Therefore, I think it is best not to try to draw direct links at this stage without knowing more about the evidence, but I reassure her that I will continue to do everything I can to make sure that the tone of the debate is right and that passions are cooled when it comes to talking about the important role of lawyers.

Joanna Cherry: I reiterate that I am not asking the Lord Chancellor for the precise details of conversations or, indeed, to comment on an ongoing case. I am asking him about the general advice that he has given to his colleagues in relation to his duties and responsibilities regarding the rule of law, because, after the Home Secretary’s speech, the Prime Minister went even further in his conference speech, declaring that he would prevent
“the whole criminal justice system from being hamstrung by…lefty human rights lawyers and other do-gooders.”
I ask the Lord Chancellor again: are newspaper reports that he spoke with the Prime Minister in advance of that speech correct? And did he tell the Prime Minister about the attack on the immigration lawyers’ offices and the warnings from counter-terrorism police to the Home Secretary about the dangers of inflammatory language against lawyers?

Robert Buckland: I can assure the hon. and learned Lady that the information about the serious allegations about the attack has been communicated to the appropriate Ministers and that everything that I have done and will continue to do is entirely consistent with my duty. Although, sadly, it might be the province of previous and current Prime Ministers to make provocative and sometimes lively comments about the legal profession, it is not the job of the Lord Chancellor to police every jot and tittle. I will continue to make sure that we get the tone of the debate right and that where we can improve on our language, we will do so.

Reducing Reoffending

Karl McCartney: What steps his Department is taking to reduce reoffending.

Stephen Hammond: What steps his Department is taking to reduce reoffending.

Tom Hunt: What steps his Department is taking to reduce reoffending.

Jack Lopresti: What steps his Department is taking to reduce reoffending.

Shaun Bailey: What steps his Department is taking to reduce reoffending.

Scott Benton: What steps his Department is taking to reduce reoffending.

Virginia Crosbie: What steps his Department is taking to reduce reoffending.

Robert Buckland: Reoffending is a complex issue, so we need to take a wide-ranging approach. That is why we will invest £20 million in the prison leavers project to test new solutions. We are also making sure that our new prisons have rehabilitation right at their heart. Our  programme to build 10,000 additional places, plus two new jails at Wellingborough and Glen Parva, will deliver improved security and better training facilities to help offenders to find employment on release.

Karl McCartney: May I be the first of the magnificent seven to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer? Reoffending rates have historically been too high, as many of us are aware from our time in court as advocates or on the magistrates bench. Does he agree that working with organisations and businesses such as the Gelder Group at HMP Lincoln, which has been involved in delivering meaningful training courses to equip those spending time at Her Majesty’s pleasure with useful skills, is the right way to provide inmates with a positive restart to their lives after jail time?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend, who has considerable experience of the justice system in a former capacity, is right to highlight the work of organisations such as the Gelder Group and its great work in delivering training to prisoners in his county. He is also right to identify how transformative training and work can be for serving prisoners and those who are released, which will take a cross-government approach as well. I was delighted to hear recently about the great work of Agile Homes at Her Majesty’s Prison Leyhill, which is not only training men to build homes but helping them to save for their own homes in future through work.

Stephen Hammond: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his commitment to the investment in the prison leavers scheme. He will know, however, that not all schemes provide rehabilitation and training. Some schemes, such as the so-called Nottingham Knockers scheme, send out men and ladies who are released prisoners to sell overpriced goods to embarrassed customers, providing humiliation but no training. Will he make sure that the investment in the prison leavers scheme has the element of training and rehabilitation that is needed, so that ex-prisoners can have successful lives thereafter?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Without that specialist support, there is a real problem that such matters might become counterproductive. Nottingham Knockers-type activities, as described, are not part of a recognised rehabilitative scheme, so I urge the public to be vigilant. When it comes to authorised schemes, we anticipate spending more than £100 million a year on accredited services.

Tom Hunt: Social media use in prisons essentially amounts to prisoners reoffending before they have even been let out. It sends a poor message about our criminal justice system that could lead to more reoffending. Will the Lord Chancellor commit to doing everything he can to ensure that those who use social media in prison are robustly punished, and will he be open to increasing and reviewing sentences rather than just giving in-house slap-on-the-wrist punishments?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the potential impact and the shock that can be caused to members of the public if people who are known to be in custody are communicating and using social media, and prisoners who break the rules should face consequences. The internal adjudication  system allows the removal of privileges, stoppage of earnings and confinement to cell, and more serious breaches can be referred to the independent adjudicator, but some crimes committed in prison are clearly so serious that governors will continue to refer those matters to the police.

Jack Lopresti: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that prison education in itself is crucial to reducing reoffending?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend makes an important point, because the evidence is that the completion of any prison education reduces reoffending by 7.5%. We plan to strengthen rehabilitation further by creating a prisoner education service that will be focused on work-based training and skills. The Prison Service’s new future network is doing great work to build partnerships between prisons and employers to ensure that prisoners are job ready on release.

Shaun Bailey: Reoffending rates in the Black Country currently stand at around 30%, and it is clear that we need to take a local stakeholder approach. What work is my right hon. and learned Friend doing with local stakeholders in the Black Country to ensure that we can bring reoffending down? Will he meet me to discuss a long-term strategy to tackle reoffending in the Black Country?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with knowledge on this subject, and I would like to thank him and the Mayor, Andy Street, for their continued work on helping to tackle reoffending. We know that offenders typically have complex needs, and the community sentence treatment requirement programme, which went live in the Black Country in June this year, aims to improve access to appropriate mental health and substance misuse services as part of community sentences. Of course I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this and other issues relevant to West Bromwich in detail.

Scott Benton: What assessment has my right hon. and learned Friend made of the likely impact of the reduction of rehabilitation periods on reducing reoffending?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend speaks with continuing passion on behalf of his constituents in Blackpool, and he knows that when it comes to improving rehabilitation, employment is a key factor. Reducing the length of time that offences need to be disclosed for most jobs will improve job prospects for people with previous convictions. It not only supports them but protects the public by decreasing the likelihood of reoffending, as there are few better crime-fighting tools than a regular pay cheque.

Virginia Crosbie: In my constituency, Jackie Blackwell, the CEO of the citizens advice bureau, and her team provide support for offenders and their families as they transition out of prison. How is the Lord Chancellor supporting charities such as Fine Cell Work and the Irene Taylor Trust, and Jackie and her team, in this vital work?

Robert Buckland: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her passionate work in this area and her advocacy on behalf of the people of Anglesey-Ynys Môn. I recognise the value that organisations such as the ones she mentions  can bring to supporting offenders and families through a challenging time. Our grants programme supports the piloting of new rehabilitation services and the further development of current programmes. I am delighted to be able to say that Ynys Môn’s citizens advice and the Irene Taylor Trust have both benefited from our grants programme, and I look forward to seeing the contributions they make to supporting prison leavers as they make the transition towards a new life.

Sexual Offenders: Transfers to Open Prisons

Sarah Champion: What risk assessments are conducted prior to the transfer of people convicted of sexual offences to open prisons.

Lucy Frazer: Access to open prison conditions is not a right, and there is no automatic progression. It is based on a detailed risk assessment. To be considered for open conditions, an individual must generally have served two to three years and have that time left to serve to the earliest release. In addition, a thorough risk assessment must be completed, considering the likelihood of the individual absconding and the risks to the public, as well as whether they are overall suited to the open estate.

Sarah Champion: I ask this question on behalf of my constituent, who I will call Elizabeth. For a decade, she was subjected to brutal abuse by a grooming gang in Rotherham. Because of her tenacity, she managed to secure convictions, including one for an individual for nine years for two counts of child rape against her. After two and a half years, she discovered that he had been downgraded to an open prison. Neither Elizabeth nor the police were consulted about this or notified as part of a risk-assessment process, so one wonders whether it is just prison conduct that contributes to risk assessments. More concerningly, he is potentially up for weekend release, although that is not going to happen because of covid. In Elizabeth’s own words, how effective does the Minister think the release on temporary leave system is? I would appreciate a direct answer.

Lucy Frazer: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this important and tragic case. She has written to me about it, and I hope that she has had the content of my letter back. I know that the service has already apologised to her constituent, and I apologise on its behalf, for not contacting her before the referral to open conditions. The victim liaison officer has made the offender manager aware of conditions that should be imposed on any release on temporary licence and so those will be taken into account should there be any ROTL granted. I am happy to continue to discuss this case with the hon. Lady at any opportune moment.

Covid-19 Lockdown in Prisons

Rosie Cooper: What lessons his Department has learned from the (a) implementation and (b) effect of the covid-19 lockdown in prisons.

Lucy Frazer: In March, we faced 2,500 to 3,500 deaths in our prisons, according to Public Health England’s worst-case  scenario, and we took decisive action to implement national restrictions to protect our staff, prisoners and the NHS. As the pandemic continues, and in line with the overall Government position, we have now developed a more localised approach, which allows governors to operate regimes that are proportionate to the risk in their local area. Throughout the pandemic, we have continued to recognise the importance of prisoners’ wellbeing and mental health, and we have responded accordingly. We will be thinking again in line with the new national restrictions that will be imposed on Thursday.

Rosie Cooper: Given the likelihood that prisoners will continue to suffer extreme restrictions, resulting in possible damage to mental health, for the whole of this winter and beyond, will the Minister guarantee that additional phone credit for prisoners and free access to video calls for families will continue for the duration of the pandemic?

Lucy Frazer: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting the measures we put in place during the last wave; as I said, we are very conscious of the impact on reduced liberties in prison. We did make available 1,200 handsets and £5 extra phone credit, and, as she mentioned, we rolled out video calling. Of course, we will continue to consider whether those are appropriate in the next phase of this pandemic.

Lyn Brown: Between today and Christmas, thousands of people will be released from prison, many of whom will have spent the past six months locked in cells for 23 hours a day, with education impossible, rehabilitation disrupted and mental health problems rising. They will be released with no job, money or second chance and an increased risk of reoffending. So, Minister, when will we have an action plan, learning the lessons from past months and providing prisoners with support, which, in turn, keeps our communities safer?

Lucy Frazer: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question, but I would like to challenge her position, because we already have an action plan. We have had the roll-out of a national framework to position 3—many prisons are already operating that. It rolls out the lifting of a number of restrictions, so that we have increased social visits across the estate, as well as offender management and a number of other measures. We are, of course, now reassessing the position and we will be having an action plan, following the imposition of further national restrictions on Thursday.

Illicit Substance Use in Prisons

Henry Smith: What steps he is taking to improve the capability of prisons to test for the use of illicit substances among prisoners.

Lucy Frazer: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the impact of drugs in our prisons, because there is a link between drugs and violence and assaults. That is why we in Government are supporting the Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill, promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). The Bill had its Second Reading last month and will ensure  that we can extend the range of substances that can be tested automatically, so that we can respond quicker to new formulations of psychoactive substances.

Henry Smith: I am grateful for that answer. What support can be provided for prisoners to ensure that they can recover permanently from drugs misuse?

Lucy Frazer: We are taking a number of approaches, of which I shall name just one: the rolling out of the NHS Reconnect service, which ensures that those having treatment in prisons can continue that treatment when they go into the community on release. The service includes assistance in making referrals and also provides peer mentoring services. It will ensure that, as my hon. Friend said, offenders permanently stay off drugs on their release.

Access to Justice

Bambos Charalambous: What steps he is taking to help ensure access to justice.

Daniel Zeichner: What steps he is taking to help ensure access to justice.

Navendu Mishra: What steps he is taking to help ensure access to justice.

Alex Chalk: Access to justice is a fundamental right and the Government are committed to ensuring that individuals can get the timely support that they need to access the justice system. In 2018-19, we spent £1.7 billion on legal aid for those who needed it. In response to the destruction caused by covid-19, we have introduced measures that include scheduling more than 100 additional Saturday court sittings each month; providing funding to not-for-profit providers of specialist legal advice, such as law centres; and rolling out the cloud video platform to enable remote hearings in all civil, family and criminal courts.

Bambos Charalambous: The Government have failed to provide any significant additional support for legal aid practitioners. The breaking point for many firms is likely to come in 2021, especially as the volume of completions in the Crown court remains low. Many legal aid firms and practitioners urgently need financial support to survive, so will the Government announce new measures to support legal aid lawyers over the second national lockdown?

Alex Chalk: Legal aid lawyers do a magnificent job of ensuring access to justice. I am pleased that the Government have been able to roll out support through furlough and so on, but it is also important that in this second lockdown the courts are continuing. It is really important to note that the magistrates courts are dealing with more cases than they are receiving, and the Government have accelerated CLAR 1, the first criminal legal aid review, which means that defence solicitors, for example, are being paid to review unused material—something that did not happen under a Labour Government.

Daniel Zeichner: We know that too often the courts are clogged up partly because too little has been done to minimise crime in the first place, which is why it is astonishing that in Cambridgeshire the number of police community support officers is to be halved, particularly at a time when they have a key role to play in covid compliance. Will the Minister join me in condemning those cuts and demanding that they be withdrawn?

Alex Chalk: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I hope he will welcome the fact that this Government are recruiting an additional 20,000 police officers. It is those officers who will crack down on crime and ensure that people who rob innocents and cause violence end up getting their just deserts.

Navendu Mishra: Court users deserve the fullest protection from covid while they access justice, as do the staff who serve them, yet there have been an alarming number of outbreaks at courts and tribunals throughout the country, including at Manchester magistrates court and others near my constituency. Does the Minister agree that by failing to consult properly with the staff union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, over risk assessments, the courts service risks making a bad situation much worse?

Alex Chalk: I pay tribute to the staff of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service whom I had the privilege of meeting when I went to Isleworth Crown court. It is the staff who are keeping courts running in extremely difficult circumstances: they are the ones who have ensured that the perspex is there, that the jury retirement rooms are properly socially distanced and that the jury assembly points are well administered. I pay tribute to them for what they are doing, and it is a testament to their achievements that the courts will continue to do what they do best: dispensing justice in our country.

Karl Turner: Equality before the law is a fundamental right, but for the vast majority of people in the country who are not eligible for legal aid, that right does not actually exist. Facing a difficult winter, even greater numbers will find themselves trapped in the justice gap of being forced to choose between legal representation and the basic essentials, as 94% of working single parents—mainly women—already do. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that the rights that we hold dear actually exist in practice?

Alex Chalk: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that ensuring access to justice is of fundamental importance, which is why, when we saw that the law centres, for example, were going to have difficulties during this pandemic, we answered the call and provided them with the funding. I was also able to speak to a great number of them to reassure them about the work that they were able to continue doing. That was the right response to take, and we are proud of the actions that we took.

Court Delays: Covid-19

Chi Onwurah: If he will bring forward a strategy to support victims affected by court delays as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

Diana R. Johnson: If he will bring forward a strategy to support victims affected by court delays as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

Rushanara Ali: If he will bring forward a strategy to support victims affected by court delays as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

Alex Chalk: We continue to make significant progress on criminal courts’ recovery. Since August, magistrates courts have consistently completed more cases than they are receiving. In the Crown court, millions of pounds have been invested in perspex screens, technology and Nightingale courts to enable thousands of hearings to be listed each week. Significant progress, too, has been made to accelerate the roll-out of the section 28 pre-recorded cross-examination service to support alleged victims to give their best evidence.

Chi Onwurah: Rape is a violent and devastating crime, putting enormous pressure on its victims, who may view the trial of their rapist as a second violation. Across the north-east, rape victims are waiting months and months for their trials to start and Northumbria police and crime commissioner Kim McGuinness tells me that that is putting enormous strain on their mental health. What support is the Minister providing, specifically to victim support organisations such as the sexual exploitation hub in my constituency, and what is he doing to make sure that more trials can take place?

Alex Chalk: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this point, and I am grateful to her for doing so. We take this extremely seriously. Of the £76 million that we allocated to victims’ organisations, a full £20 million was rolled out through PCCs to provide the community support that she refers to, but that did not emerge from a clear blue sky. We were also providing money for independent sexual violence advisers to support victims as they progress through the criminal justice system. The critical thing is to keep the courts going during this pandemic. That is what we are doing when others might not have done, and we are proud of what Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is providing.

Diana R. Johnson: In Hull North, levels of antisocial behaviour in areas such as Orchard Park, Beverley Road, Pearson Park, Princes Avenue and Kingswood have been growing, and the perpetrators behave as if they were beyond the reach of the justice system and the law. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterpart in the Home Office about a specific strategy for communities where antisocial behaviour is growing to work with victims affected by court delays, and will he meet me to discuss what more can be done?

Alex Chalk: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Let the message go out in Kingston upon Hull that people who want to perpetrate antisocial behaviour should understand that the courts are operating, that the police are there to make arrests and that justice will be done. That is what is being delivered during this pandemic, thanks to the hard work of plenty of people. On her final point, of course, I would be delighted to meet her to discuss this matter further.

Rushanara Ali: I hope the Minister will meet with me as well to discuss this matter. The delays, as my colleagues have already said, have meant that victims of serious violent crime, such as rape, sexual abuse and other kinds of crime, are facing a double threat: first of the crime and then of the delay. That is causing huge trauma. In the context of half a million unheard cases, can the Minister specifically state how many of the 200 additional court venues have been provided and how much additional funding has been provided to deal with the additional crisis caused by coronavirus?

Alex Chalk: Let me deal with this point about courts. Because so much money has gone into providing perspex and so on, the number of courtrooms available for trials is higher than the baseline. That is important. Even before this pandemic, we had increased by 50% the amount of funding that was going into rape support centres, because we recognised the importance of providing that support. We will continue to support individuals through independent sexual violence advisers and through providing that capacity in our court system so that victims can get the justice they deserve.

Peter Kyle: The court backlog is not just a number; it is a tragedy for every victim who is awaiting justice. The Tory PCC for Hertfordshire wrote to Ministers back in June to say that victims were pulling out of trials and that criminals were walking away scot-free as a result. How many crimes need to go unpunished before Ministers will come before the House with a plan backed up by targets and resource so that criminals are brought to justice?

Alex Chalk: I regret that the hon. Gentleman has not read the plan that has been published, because if he had, he would know that in the magistrates courts the backlog is being eroded, because disposals have exceeded receipts since the end of July, and that the number of trial courts is higher than the baseline. If he had read the report, he would know that. This Government are keeping courts running and ensuring that justice will be served.

Courts: Three-tier Covid Levels

Nick Smith: What assessment he has made of the effect of the Government’s three-tier local covid-19 alert levels on the operation of the courts.

Chris Philp: We have made a very careful assessment of the safety of all our court buildings. I am pleased to say that courts across the country are opening and operating regardless of the tier they may have been in previously and regardless of the altered circumstances that are commencing on Thursday. The courts are open, they are operating, and justice is being done.

Nick Smith: In firebreak Wales, the justice system has had to operate under really difficult circumstances lately, and I pay credit to those who have worked so hard to adapt. However, figures shared with me by the chief constable in Gwent point to significant delays in first hearings and a 57% increase in witnesses being supported locally. To help deal with this, will the Government prioritise hearings for the most serious crimes before they get lost in another backlog?

Chris Philp: I share the hon. Gentleman’s thanks to HMCTS staff and the judiciary and magistrates who have been keeping our courts running in what have been difficult circumstances. The cases that are prioritised are decided by the judges, who take responsibility for listing. However, cases such as domestic violence protection orders, which are often very urgent, are certainly being prioritised, and the most serious cases, particularly where there are vulnerable victims—we have heard about rape cases already this morning—are being listed at the earliest possible opportunity.
As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), said, in the magistrates court we are now disposing of more cases than are being received. That has been the case since the end of July, so the outstanding caseload is coming down. As for Crown court jury trials, we now have more Crown court courtrooms for jury trials open and operating than was the case before the pandemic, so we are expecting similarly encouraging progress to start feeding through with regard to those trials as well.

Alex Cunningham: In recent times we have seen outbreaks of covid in different courts around the country, despite the claims and answers to my parliamentary questions that everything possible is being done to keep them safe. The Government have been found out and hit with fines by the Health and Safety Executive for what can only be described as a catalogue of failures at Westminster magistrates court, including risk assessment found not to be suitable and sufficient. Then there were issues with social distancing, staff training and management arrangements. Can the Minister put his hand on his heart and honestly say that other courts would not fail the HSE test, and will he agree that it is now time to work with staff representatives to put things right, and carry out the national risk assessment demanded today by the Criminal Bar Association?

Chris Philp: A huge amount of work has happened over the past six months to risk-assess different courts, working with Public Health England and Public Health Wales, and talking to union representatives as well. That is how we have got almost every court in the country now up and running in a socially distanced way. For example, we have installed perspex screens to make sure that jurors are separated from one another, and we are making sure that there are jury retiring rooms where jurors can space out. There is extremely frequent cleaning happening throughout every courtroom. What is important is that justice is done, justice is delivered, and it is done safely, and that is precisely what is now happening.

Female Offender Strategy

Ellie Reeves: What progress he has made on the implementation of the female offender strategy.

Lucy Frazer: The female offenders strategy launched two years ago recognises a different approach to female offenders, and we are making good progress. We initially invested £5.1 million in funding to 30 women’s services across  England and Wales, and we are currently in the process of allocating a further £2.5 million for this year to improve women’s centres’ financial viability.

Ellie Reeves: There are over 2,200 more women in prison compared with 25 years ago, and 82% have been sentenced for non-violent offences. A second lockdown will hit them hard, so can the Minister confirm what steps are being taken to give women in prison virtual access to their children? How many pregnant women are currently in custody? How many women have been released as part of the early release scheme?

Lucy Frazer: We are very conscious of the impact of lockdown on our female estate, and we will be looking very carefully, as we look at the new framework for the new provisions on Thursday, at how we can in particular protect women in the female estate, recognising the significant mental health issues they face. We are very conscious of the need to ensure family contact, and all our female estate have access to virtual calls. The hon. Member is aware, I hope, of our recent mother and baby unit review in relation to operations to look after pregnant women and women with young children on the estate. That is currently in a consultation phase. We have set out a number of measures, including personalised access and plans to help those across our female estate who are pregnant or who have dependants.

Topical Questions

Geraint Davies: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Robert Buckland: Throughout the pandemic, dedicated public servants across the justice system have continued delivering vital services. We have implemented contingency measures to ensure that hearings could continue safely and securely, and we now have 16 Nightingale courtrooms. We have also implemented a national framework for dealing with covid in our prisons and secured greater access to testing in order to manage outbreaks.
As the Prime Minister outlined at the weekend, it is now necessary for England to enter into a new set of national restrictions so that we can stem the spread of the virus, protect our NHS and save lives, but essential public services will stay open and that of course includes courts and prisons. We are well prepared to respond to the current restrictions, having acquired valuable knowledge from the first wave of the virus, with contingency plans in place to manage risks throughout the winter. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing gratitude to all our justice heroes working in prisons, probation and the courts, who will continue to go the extra mile.

Geraint Davies: Can the Justice Secretary give an example of a military operational decision that has been changed as a result of court action or the threat of court action, and an example of a vexatious claim that has not been dismissed by the courts, with costs?

Robert Buckland: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Bill that will be debated this afternoon, which contains important provisions to get the balance  right between the need to make sure that our armed services are supported properly and their contribution is valued and the need to make sure that, like everybody else, no one is above the law. There have at times in years gone by been a number of examples where members of our gallant armed services have been unfairly exposed to the potential of legal action, which has caused real hurt, disquiet and genuine concern among the general public. It is right that in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill we take corrective action to get that balance more finely adjusted.

David Lammy: A decade of cuts, court closures and mishandling of the pandemic has created a backlog in the Crown courts of nearly 50,000 cases. It could reach 195,000 by 2024. The Courts Service says we need at least an extra 200 venues to fill the gap, but on 19 October 2020, the Judicial Office confirmed only five Nightingale courts were hearing jury trials. That is a failure of epic proportions, leading to thousands of victims of serious crime being denied justice. Has the Lord Chancellor failed to ask for enough resources to get justice moving, or has he been denied it by the Treasury?

Robert Buckland: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on all fronts. First, we secured an extra £80 million of funding from the Treasury to deal specifically with covid court recovery. That came on top of the largest investment and increase in court maintenance in 20 years, including during his stewardship. That has resulted in the scaling up of courts, so that today we have 255 courtrooms hearing jury trials, which is ahead of the target I had set for the end of October. We will go further. We have already opened 19 courtrooms under the Nightingale court scheme. This is not a story of failure. This is a story of success and hard work on the part of everybody in the court service. The projections that he mentioned are based upon some pretty inaccurate predictions that do not bear the closest scrutiny.[Official Report, 9 November 2020, Vol. 683, c. 8MC.]

Paul Howell: What are the Government doing to support the resourcing of magistrates courts, which are vital to the dispensation of justice in my constituency and across the UK? For victims of violent crime and domestic abuse in particular, it is important that their cases are expedited.

Robert Buckland: Like my hon. Friend, I am very grateful to the magistracy in County Durham and elsewhere for the part they have played in keeping our system working. All victims—none more so than those he mentions—deserve prompt justice. That is why I am grateful to every part of the criminal justice system that is working so hard to ensure case progression. To that end, we have made available £1 million to improve the recruitment process. We reviewed our planned recruitment in line with changing demands on our magistracy and are consulting on proposals to increase the mandatory retirement age of all judicial office holders.

Rachael Maskell: When somebody under the age of 18 commits an offence, they join the long list of those waiting for their case to come to a hearing, and they are then tried in the adult courts. That cannot be right. Will the Justice Secretary review this and ensure that, if a crime is committed by a youth, they are tried through the youth justice system?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Lady can be reassured that these issues are being examined at the moment. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), and I take a particular interest in the threshold in the change from youth status to adult. It applies in a multiplicity of different ways. I can assure her, for example, that people who have attained the age of 18 are dealt with as youths for the purposes of sentencing, but the position is complex, and we are looking at all the ramifications of it, including the one that she raised.

Gordon Henderson: Will my hon. and learned Friend explain what she is doing to ensure that prison staff have access to swift testing, to avoid unnecessary periods of self-isolation? Has consideration been given to making mandatory the wearing of face masks by prison officers when on duty?

Lucy Frazer: I would like to thank all the staff who have been working so hard at this particularly challenging time. We have started to routinely test staff, and we are providing personal protective equipment, including medical-grade face masks.

Florence Eshalomi: Access to justice is under threat. In my constituency, we have just lost one of our most established independent legal advice centres. As Members will know, access to that service is vital; we see it in our casework. It is important for citizens to have access to free legal advice. The sector has faced so many cuts over the years, and since lockdown, demand has grown—demand from people facing debt and people facing employment issues. If these centres are to close, it will cause unimaginable stress. Can the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking to ensure that these vital services are available for citizens?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising an important and enduring issue. I, too, similarly pay tribute to the work that law centres and other organisations play in administering important advice and those first steps that are so crucial sometimes in actually dealing effectively with problems that can be averted. Already as part of pre-covid work, we had allocated £5 million for early legal help. I know the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), is working tirelessly to evolve a scheme of early legal support and advice. It is something that I passionately endorse as well. We will continue to develop that and to achieve the ends that I think both she and I share.

Wera Hobhouse: The female offender strategy rightly recommends women’s centres over custodial sentences, but the funding committed as part of the strategy ran out in March. The Minister earlier actually referred to more funding for women’s services, but I am talking about women’s centres, and I have been unsuccessfully trying to set up one in Bath. Will the Government commit to providing a significant amount of core funding for women’s centres?

Lucy Frazer: If I could correct the hon. Lady, the £2.5 million that we have committed this year for the female offender strategy will be going directly to women’s  centres where they bid for it. I am very happy to talk to her about her particular centre, but the £2.5 million is specifically to help sustain the women’s centres to continue to support our female offenders.

Sheryll Murray: What steps is my right hon. and learned Friend taking to ensure that all victims, but in particular those subject to crimes such as sexual-related offences or modern slavery, are being properly supported and that their rights are being properly protected during this time?

Robert Buckland: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know she works closely with support services and victims groups in her constituency. We are committed to ensuring that victims like the ones she mentioned receive the support they need. We have delivered £22 million of emergency funding to support victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence. That has reached more than 540 charities in the frontline so far. Indeed, following the No. 10 hidden harms summit, which I took part in, we are delivering an action plan that puts victims at the centre of the criminal justice system and, indeed, our courts recovery programme. We are strengthening the victims code to establish a clearer set of rights for victims.

Andrew Gwynne: At a time when England is entering a second national lockdown, potential victims of domestic abuse are again increasingly vulnerable, so what steps are being taken to make sure that trials of people accused of domestic abuse and, indeed, support for their victims are being prioritised by Government?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and he can be reassured that, throughout the pandemic, domestic abuse cases appearing in a magistrates court and indeed in the Crown court have been given the priority that we all expect them to be allocated. We have seen, of course, a big demand spike in the covid crisis for domestic abuse support services, which is why the package that I referred to in the previous answer—the £25 million package, of which £22 million has already been allocated to support groups dealing with domestic abuse and sexual violence—is already making a real difference to victims and those affected by domestic abuse.

Mike Hill: Records show that, because of police underfunding, Cleveland police are 500 officers down. Hartlepool magistrates court has closed and our local cells have been mothballed. Would the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss the reopening of our police cells in Hartlepool as a matter of importance in order to build back confidence?

Robert Buckland: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would support very much the Government’s moves to scale up the number of police officers. In Cleveland, the numbers are already rising in an encouraging way. I note the point that he makes about particular custodial facilities. Of course I will discuss the matter with him. He will know that it is vital that we maintain local justice, but at the same time make sure that we use remote technology as well in order to get cases on as quickly as possible and to deliver justice to victims.

Antony Higginbotham: The Lord Chancellor will be aware of my constituent Kelly Ormerod, whose parents sadly died while on holiday in Egypt more than two years ago. Unfortunately, in the last two years, the UK coroner has been unable to get the answers he needs to be able to identify the cause of death. That has caused great anxiety for the family and denied them the answers that they are looking for. Would the Lord Chancellor therefore meet me and Kelly to see how we can progress this case through the UK coroner to give them the answers they deserve?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly on this very sensitive and sad case, and I pay tribute to him for his hard work on behalf of his constituents. I am sure that this delay is causing them additional distress, and of course I will be happy to meet him. He knows that, sadly, the Government cannot compel the production of documents for a coroner investigation from the Egyptian authorities, but my officials have indeed contacted the senior coroner in the local area for more details and an update, and I understand that the senior coroner has now written to the Egyptian prosecutor general.

Lisa Cameron: The YPeople project in Lindsay House in East Kilbride in my constituency has had the police called out 700 times in two years in respect of antisocial behaviour, crime, weapons and drug misuse, and this has continued at a high rate even during lockdown. Local residents now tell me they are terrified and parents are saying that children are being offered drugs during their school lunch breaks. What more can be done to provide intensive offender and substance abuse rehabilitation prior to relocation to local communities so that residents are not put at such pervasive risk?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Lady raises a very serious case in her constituency, and I am sure that her colleagues in the Scottish Government, who of course have always had responsibility for these matters, Scotland being a separate criminal jurisdiction, will consider this very carefully. I am concerned to hear that in that local instance, despite best intentions, there does not seem to be that reach into the community to give people the speedy comfort and the confidence that they deserve. May I say that south of the border we are working very hard to enhance and improve community treatment requirements to deal with drug addiction and alcohol abuse and, indeed, to try and get to the root cause of some of this reoffending that causes misery to communities such as the one the hon. Lady serves?

Anthony Mangnall: My constituency of Totnes in south Devon is home to LandWorks, a fantastic charity that helps those at risk of going to prison or prisoners into jobs and back into the community. With so many prisoners released every month who are unable to access universal credit and housing, will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can improve access to those mechanisms, as well as visiting LandWorks?

Lucy Frazer: I would be very happy to visit when we are allowed to do so, and certainly before then to discuss the issues in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I pay tribute to the work of LandWorks in his area. The  issue of universal credit is fundamental, as is getting people into homes, and I work very closely with my counterpart at the Department for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State at the Department, along with the Lord Chancellor, to ensure that prison leavers can access universal credit in a timely way on their release, and we are doing other work in relation to their getting a job and a home.

Lucy Allan: As we enter another lockdown with severe restrictions on prisoners, will the Minister consider the impact of the very serious other harms that the minimising covid restrictions risk causing to prisoners, prison officers and their families?

Lucy Frazer: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We are very conscious of the impact that the very restrictive conditions we have imposed will have on those in our custody and care. Since restrictions  were lifted over the summer, prison staff across the country have worked very hard to open up the estate. Since the end of the previous lockdown we have reintroduced visits in every prison, and 119 of our prisons are operating at stage 3 of the national framework; this reintroduced key work, education and offender management activities where it was appropriate to do so. As we enter a new phase, we are thinking very carefully about the balance between security and resistance to the virus and the mental health needs of our prisoners.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: Before I call the shadow Chancellor to ask an urgent question, I have a brief statement to make. Motion No. 9 on today’s Order Paper extends the proxy voting scheme to allow proxies for hon. Members present on the precincts of the Palace. If the motion is passed, I intend to introduce the new scheme with effect from tomorrow, including hon. Members who make their designation before 9.30 am tomorrow. To apply for a proxy, Members must email proxyvote@parliament.uk with the name of their nominated proxy. On subsequent days, notice will be given before the House rises on the preceding sitting day, or 3 o’clock on a non-sitting Friday.

Lockdown: Economic Support

Anneliese Dodds: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on economic support available to individuals and businesses during and after the recently announced lockdown.

Steve Barclay: Yesterday, the Prime Minister set out why we are introducing new measures to tackle coronavirus.

Toby Perkins: He’s not the Chancellor.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Toby, I do not need this all the way through. Please, I want to get on with this statement. I have granted the UQ, and I do not need Back Benchers chirping.

Steve Barclay: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister set out why we are introducing new measures to tackle coronavirus. This decision is not one we would wish to take, but it responds to the soaring infection rate.
Just as we have a responsibility to protect lives, we must also safeguard livelihoods. That is why the Government have provided unprecedented levels of financial support throughout this crisis, in a package described by the International Monetary Fund as
“one of the best examples of co-ordinated action globally”.
This package includes an extension to the coronavirus job retention scheme, where employees will receive 80% of their usual salary up to a maximum of £2,500, while employers need only pay national insurance and pension contributions. We will provide more support to the self-employed. We are increasing the self-employed income support scheme grant from 40% to 80% in November. This boosts the total grant from 40% to 55% of trading profits from November to January, up to a total of £5,160, aligning it with the furlough scheme. In addition, homeowners hit by the pandemic can continue to claim a six-month mortgage holiday, and businesses that are required to close can receive non-repayable grants worth up to £3,000 a month. In total, these grants are worth over £1 billion a month.
We are also planning to extend the existing business loan schemes and the future fund to the end of January, as well as making it possible to top up bounce back loans. Local authorities will also receive £1.1 billion to support businesses more broadly, and up to £500 million to support the local public health message through the contain outbreak management fund. We will also uplift the Barnett guarantee this week to give Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland further certainty over their up-front funding.
These measures build on the Government’s economic package that now totals over £200 billion. They will provide security to millions of people while giving businesses the flexibility to adapt and plan, and they underline our unrelenting focus on listening and responding to the damaging path of this virus.

Anneliese Dodds: Thank you very much for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. The circuit breaker that Labour proposed three weeks ago would have been shorter and more effective, so less damaging to jobs and  businesses, than the Government’s last-minute, but lengthy, lockdown. The cost of that Conservative delay will be counted in lives and livelihoods, so was it the Chancellor who vetoed the circuit breaker? Why did he tell the Welsh Government that it was impossible to extend furlough, and why did he dismiss those in the north who said his plans would lead to hardship?
I heard from one restaurant about the strain caused by this panicked, last-minute approach. As rumours of a lockdown circulated on Friday, staff wiped away tears before putting on a brave face to customers. They did not know whether, in the following week, they would be working as normal, facing redundancy, being paid at 67% of their normal wages or being paid at 73%.
Similarly, the self-employed endured intransigence and then rumour, before a last-minute announcement yesterday that still leaves many people with nothing. Businesses need to know what support they will receive if their area faces further restrictions on the other side of lockdown, but the Prime Minister said yesterday that they will not find out until just before those restrictions are imposed.
How can any business plan on that basis? How can people cope with that level of insecurity? The lack of any plan for economic support is making a very, very difficult situation even worse. Will the Chancellor and his Ministers finally get a grip, and set out the plan for the next six months? Will they indicate how the different scenarios facing us will be dealt with, not retrospectively, or at the last minute, or once businesses have gone bust and jobs have already been lost, but in advance? Will they set out a plan for support if the lockdown is extended, or if some regions or devolved nations remain under restrictions for longer? Finally, will I continue having to drag Government Ministers here week after week as this Government stumble from one crisis to the next?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady started by saying that the circuit breaker would have been shorter, but those on her Front Bench have repeatedly said, when interviewed, that a circuit breaker would have to be repeated.
The deputy chief medical officer was clear that an earlier national lockdown would not have been appropriate, because at the time, the path of the virus was very slow in certain areas, such as the south-west, so the economic damage would have been disproportionate. I might have expected to hear the hon. Lady’s argument from some Members of the House, but it is surprising that the economic spokesperson for the Opposition was willing to see that economic damage. [Interruption.] She chunters, but I am simply quoting the deputy chief medical officer, whose advice was that a lockdown would have been the wrong action to take at that time. I am pointing to economic damage, which she seems to see as trivial and something to be disregarded.
The hon. Lady then claimed that the Government had in some way dismissed certain parts of the United Kingdom. I gently point out that furlough was not ended; it continued to the end of October, and has now been extended. Furlough has continued in all parts of the United Kingdom without any gap in its provision.
The hon. Lady asks whether the Government have a plan in place. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor came to the House on 24 September to set out our winter plan for jobs. It included the kickstart scheme, which is up and running, and provides much-needed training to our constituents across the country. While setting out his winter plan, he said candidly that if the pathway of the virus changed, the Government would listen and adapt, and that is exactly the action that we have taken.
Finally, somewhat strangely, the hon. Lady said that she needs to “drag” Ministers to the Chamber to set out their approach. [Interruption.] She is repeating the point. Mr Speaker, I thought the Prime Minister was here yesterday to give a statement to the House. It is somewhat strange to say, the day after he did that, that Ministers have to be dragged to the Chamber to give updates on the position.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I decide whether we have an urgent question, and I am sure that the Minister is not questioning my judgment on that.

Steve Barclay: Mr Speaker, I hope that you know me well enough to feel that I would never do that; I clarify that for the record in case any other impression was given. My point was that the diligence of Ministers in updating the House was demonstrated by the Prime Minister yesterday in his statement.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We will leave it at this, but it is no good to have something played out through the press on Saturday and Sunday, so that on Monday everybody already knows about it, and it is no shock. That is why the right hon. Gentleman could not judge whether to have a UQ. We will leave it there.

Steve Barclay: We have a plan set out—the winter plan. We have always demonstrated that we will listen and adapt; that is what the Government are doing. They are setting out a comprehensive package of support to protect as many jobs and livelihoods as possible.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us enter Central Devon with the Chair of the Select Committee on the Treasury, Mel Stride.

Mel Stride: I broadly welcome the new measures that the Government have brought forward to support jobs and, in particular, the increase in support for the self-employed from 40% to 80% under the self-employment income support scheme arrangements. However, as my right hon. Friend will know, the Treasury Committee produced a report earlier this year in which we identified more than a million individuals—the self-employed in particular—who were missing out on support. Will he update the House on whether, under the new measures, any of those identified in the report will receive support where they were not before? If the answer is no, why is that the case?

Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that some were not covered. In fact, that has been an area of much debate within the House. He will understand that there is a distinction to draw between employees who, because their details had not been notified to HMRC at the cut-off point last time, were  excluded, and those who because of the furlough extension will be included moving forward, so some of that population cohort are covered.
In respect of the self-employed cohort, my right hon. Friend will be aware that we have so far offered over £30 billion of support to the self-employed, which is generous by international standards. He knows, however, that, within that, there are different cohorts. There is the cohort relating to company directors, where the issue remains the same: what is dividend income and what is not. He will know that another part of that group is those earning above £50,000, and we made a decision to target support below that threshold. He will know that some people are self-employed but that is not the majority of their income—less than 50% is through their being self-employed—and that we targeted funding at those for whom self-employment was their main provision. So there are different cohorts within the excluded population, but those who were employed will be covered by the furlough extension.

Alison Thewliss: The UK Government continue to lurch around in absolute chaos, with a Prime Minister forced, due to the leak of his plans, to come on TV and, after hours of delay, squeezing in before “Strictly” to announce an English lockdown and the extension of furlough just before it was due to expire. We have been telling them for months that it would need to be extended. While I welcome the action, this late extension will be of absolutely no comfort to those who have already lost their jobs due to the Government’s incompetence, or to the businesses in my constituency who have done their utmost to support their staff and now have no idea where they stand. It is no comfort either to those who continue to be ignored. Those excluded from the initial support schemes face a bleak winter ahead. Will the Chief Secretary ensure that they do not lose out again? There are still many sectors of the economy that cannot go back to normal.
The overwhelming sense, for many of us, is that this is not a Union of equals. When Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and parts of the north-east of England asked for furlough to be extended this autumn, they were told that the Chancellor’s magic money tree had lost all its leaves. Yet, when the Prime Minister decided that England needed to go into urgent lockdown, it turned out that the magic money tree was in fact an evergreen.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister gamed his answers on furlough in the House in a pathetic and transparent attempt to make the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) look good, but he was contradicted on Sky News this morning by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government who said it would be up to the Chancellor to decide if furlough would be available to the devolved nations after 2 December. In an act of further disrespect, the Chancellor is not even here to answer this question. Will the Chief Secretary therefore be clear and honest about whether the Treasury will make furlough and SEISS available at 80% to any part of these islands that requires that after 2 December?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady started by saying that we were disrespecting parts of the United Kingdom. I was on a call yesterday with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the First Secretary of State and the Home Secretary and others, with the First Minister of Scotland, the First Minister of Wales and the Deputy  First Minister of Northern Ireland as part of our regular dialogue. That continues across the United Kingdom and, indeed, at official level. The chief medical officers liaise extremely closely together.
Secondly, the hon. Lady’s various grievances are somewhat both surprising and disappointing when the Government have listened and introduced, for the first time, an up-front Barnett guarantee that has provided the Scottish Government with £7.2 billion of funding at an earlier point than would traditionally be the case, recognising the volatility of the situation with covid. It would be good for her to recognise that that is unprecedented and different. Again, on the call yesterday, I signalled to the First Minister that this week we would update with a further uplift—following our unprecedented action—to give more clarity on the Barnett guarantee and the consequentials flowing from that.
Thirdly—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady keeps chuntering. Many of the schemes are UK-wide ones: we have extended the loans, the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employed income support scheme. Those can be delivered through the broad shoulders that the United Kingdom offers. It is true that, through that capacity to act as one United Kingdom, we have been able to protect up to 1 million jobs in Scotland. It is important that we work together. That is why we were engaging with the Scottish Government yesterday. More can be achieved if the Scottish Government and the UK Government work together. That is how, to date, we have protected up to 1 million jobs, and that is the best way forward.

David Mundell: As we have just seen, uncertainty in Scotland is always a basis for grievance for the SNP. My right hon. Friend can end that uncertainty simply by clarifying that, should the scientific evidence demand a further lockdown in Scotland, the furlough scheme at 80% will be available to protect jobs in Scotland.

Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend is right to pick up on that grievance culture. Through our ability to act on a UK basis, we have been able to offer the unprecedented support that we have to date. Furlough has always been a UK-wide scheme and, as the Prime Minister said, the Government will always be there to provide support to all parts of the United Kingdom.

Mary Foy: Last month, the Government disgraced themselves by voting against extending free school meals into the holidays for our most vulnerable children. Even if the Government will not reverse that cruel decision, will they at least follow Action for Children’s recommendations and extend free school meals for all families in receipt of universal credit?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady raises a serious issue and one that all Members of the House care deeply about, but it is also important to look at the package as a whole. We have put in an additional £9 billion of welfare support, recognising the increasing pressures. That includes the £20 uplift on universal credit, the lifting of the minimum income guarantee and the various other measures in the package. Above all, retaining jobs and getting people back into the labour market is the best way that we can protect people from poverty.

David Evennett: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s positive response on the additional measures of economic support. Does he agree that our Government have committed one of the most comprehensive and generous economic support packages anywhere in the world, worth more than £200 billion? That is the right approach in these difficult times. He rightly quotes the IMF in saying that our response is
“one of the best examples of coordinated action globally”.
Is it not also important that the IMF praised our response for holding down unemployment?

Steve Barclay: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. He is quite right to pick up on the IMF report and the comments of the director of the IMF. It is worth reminding the House exactly what the IMF director said: that the UK’s economic support package is
“one of the best examples of coordinated action globally”.
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend that that speaks to the comprehensive package that the Chancellor has put in place.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that funding would be available for the furlough scheme in the devolved nations, not just now but for the future. As the Minister has just pointed out, furlough is a UK-wide scheme, needed in all parts of the United Kingdom, not only at the behest of the Chancellor. This morning, however, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that it would be a matter for the Chancellor, not the Prime Minister. Will the Minister confirm today exactly what the situation is? Will he tell businesses in Gower and across the United Kingdom what the situation is? Also, will he tell us who is in charge, the Chancellor or the Prime Minister?

Steve Barclay: We have already extended the furlough for the rest of this month, and, as the PM said yesterday, we will always be there for all parts of the United Kingdom.

Siobhan Baillie: Some of the most difficult conversations I have had this year have been with Stroud’s wedding and events industries and their supply chains—great businesses such as Eastington Park, Stonehouse Court, Elmore Court and Bisley Hire. They are usually thriving, but they basically feel ignored. They have had a stop-start situation this year and are now nervously looking at next year, having lost a year’s revenue. Will my right hon. Friend commit to looking at this valuable sector again to see what support we can make available, and will he meet me to discuss this matter?

Steve Barclay: I am always very happy to meet my hon. Friend. She is right to talk about a sector that has been particularly hit by the impact of the covid pandemic. She will be aware that, as part of the comprehensive package of support, such sectors qualify for the extension to the job retention scheme and the cash grants of up to £3,000 per month to businesses that are closed. I also point her to the £1.1 billion of additional funding that has been allocated to councils, which is a key part of the business support at their discretion that they can allocate to those businesses acutely hit in their authorities.

Christine Jardine: Businesses across my constituency and across the country made irreversible decisions last week based on advice from the Government that furlough was going to end on Saturday. They now find themselves in a situation where furlough has been extended, but only for a month, and there is a complete lack of clarity still today about the devolved nations. Will the Chief Secretary please urge the Chancellor to extend furlough through to the spring—covid-19 is not going away at the end of this month—and can he give us a simple, one-word answer? Is furlough going to be available to the devolved nations, or is he going to continue this uncertainty, which is damaging the Union?

Steve Barclay: At the risk of repeating myself, I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave earlier, but she did make a specific point about those who may have recently been made redundant. [Interruption.] Again, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) chunters from a sedentary position. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) made a specific point about those recently made redundant and I was just coming on to answer that precise point. Employees notified by real-time information submission to HMRC on or before 30 October are eligible for the furlough extension, but employees employed as of 23 September, which is the day of the job support scheme announcement, and notified to HMRC by RTI on or before that date who have since been made redundant can be re-hired. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, the timing is important, but the point is that people can be re-hired as part of the furlough extension.

John Redwood: I am glad that the Government agree that where, by law, they stop people working and earning a living, they should compensate them. Will the Government look again at the terms of the scheme for the self-employed—there are restrictions on several categories of self-employed who have no other means of earning their living and no large company support—and be more generous? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need all those self-employed people to be ready to return to work to get some kind of recovery going soon, because the economy is in deep trouble?

Steve Barclay: I agree with my right hon. Friend that we need to ensure that the economy is able to bounce back quickly. That is why we have provided over £13 billion of support to the self-employed, which by international comparisons—I know my right hon. Friend looks at international comparisons—he will see is extremely generous. I have set out previously in the House part of the operational difficulties, for example with owner-directors in terms of what is dividend income and what is not. The point is that we have set out a generous self-employment income support scheme, but we need to deliver that operationally in a way that meets the tests set by, for example, the Public Accounts Committee, which has asked whether we have the right level of controls in place, given the speed at which these schemes were deployed.

Sammy Wilson: The latest ill-advised lockdown is going to present an enormous burden for the economy in terms of lost tax revenue, additional Government spending and reduced GDP. It is right that since the economic pain is being imposed  by the Government, those affected should be compensated for the pain that they will suffer. I welcome the Chief Secretary’s assurance that the furlough scheme will apply across the whole United Kingdom, but can he tell us what Barnett consequentials will be received by Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales for the business support grant that he announced in this package?

Steve Barclay: The right hon. Gentleman raises a valid and fair point. As I said on my call with the First Minister yesterday, I hope to be in a position to update her this week about the additional Barnett guarantee that we can give. The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the consequentials that flow from the £1.1 billion of additional local authority funding that the Chancellor set out. He will also have seen, for example, the additional support that the UK Government gave to Transport for London, the rail support measures that we have provided, and so on. Those are the issues on which the Barnett consequentials will be shaped. He is right that it is important for them to have sight of that. That is why we have taken the unprecedented decision to give that up-front guarantee, and I hope to be able to give an update on that later this week.

Adam Afriyie: My heart is breaking for the once-thriving businesses across the Windsor constituency and the country. I have met owners of pubs, clubs, restaurants, bars, sports venues, salons and retail outlets. They cannot magically become online businesses. I have spoken to business owners who have literally been in tears on the phone and in person when they think about their staff and their livelihoods.
The new proposed lockdown will prove fatal to many such businesses. There are many questions about the strategy, the need for a lockdown and the generous support the Government are trying to give, but I will contain my question to this: how do the Government intend to protect retail businesses that are forced to close from the increasing dominance of online retailers, which often benefit from lower business rates and taxes than their terrestrial partners?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend has a deep understanding of business from his career prior to coming to the House. He is absolutely right to talk of the personal consequences, the commitment that people who set up and run businesses have made, and the devastating impact of the virus and its consequences. On the tax position, he will know from his time in the House that those are questions for the Budget and for my right hon Friend the Chancellor.
On the support that has been given to businesses, I direct my hon. Friend to the extension of the loans that we have given to help businesses with their cash flow, which recognises that the biggest cost for many businesses is the fixed cost of their property. That includes the up to £3,000 a month grant for those with rateable values above £51,000 and the support to local authorities, as I referenced in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) a moment ago, for their discretionary support to specific businesses. It is part of that comprehensive package, but he is right to draw attention to the human consequence of those decisions.

Peter Kyle: Any additional investment to help the self-employed is welcome, and I do welcome it, but I ask the Chief Secretary to look at the eligibility  criteria that he has set. With the furlough scheme, the eligibility criteria have been updated so that businesses that have been registered with a bank account right up to last Friday can apply. For the self-employed, however, the eligibility criteria have not changed at all and will exclude many self-employed people from all the additional investment that is now available. Will he look at that?

Steve Barclay: Such has been the number of times that the matter has been raised in the House and through the campaign, we have looked at it. Some of those issues have not changed—for example, the difficulty of determining what is dividend income as opposed to earned income, as I referred to in my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). We took a decision to target those below the £50,000 threshold. Some of those issues have not changed from the previous period.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the furlough allows some of those who were excluded to come within scope, but I draw the House’s attention to the fact that, even within the House, there is a degree of conflict here. The Treasury Committee has said that we should be more willing to bring the cohort of the self-employed into scope, yet the Public Accounts Committee has expressed concern that we need to have much stricter operational controls because of the risks, for example, of fraud. We see that difference even between the two Select Committees in this House. Of the different cohorts within what is known as the ExcludedUK campaign, some of those on furlough will be able to come back into scope, but much of the rationale has not changed. Of course, we will continue to look at it.

Martin Vickers: May I seek further clarification on the previous answer and on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)? Self-employed people who have in effect created a limited company and draw dividends are being prevented by the Government from trading. Rather than just outlining the difficulties, will the Chief Secretary commit to saying we will find a way around that, so we can actually tell our constituents what support they will receive over the next few weeks?

Steve Barclay: For reasons I set out some time ago to the Treasury Committee, and for the reasons set out by the Chancellor, operationally the concern is that while there will of course be many legitimate circumstances where people wish to make a claim, unfortunately there will also be significant risk of fraud. I pointed to the fact that within the House itself part of the challenge is how we ensure we have the right balance between the speed of delivery—we move quickly to get schemes to people—with the operational controls we put in place. That is why we have taken the position we have.

Apsana Begum: Since the previous lockdown was lifted, two leisure centres in my constituency have not reopened. Both facilities were outsourced by my council due in part to the lack of funding to local authorities. Leisure centres such as these are vital to the mental health and wellbeing of the communities they serve. Indeed, I believe they should be defined as an essential service. What will be done to ensure that that essential service and leisure centres  such as St George’s and Tiller in my constituency do not face permanent closure as a result of the forthcoming, and any future, lockdown?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady is right to point to the pivotal nature of leisure centres in our constituencies. I think all Members would agree with that. I draw her attention to the £4.7 billion of additional funding we have given to local authorities as part of our response to covid, and to the discretion we have given local authorities so that they can apply that funding with the local knowledge they have and target it in the most effective way.

Dr Caroline Johnson: First, I would like to welcome the unprecedented innovative package of support the Chancellor has put in place, which has undoubtedly helped to support businesses and families in my constituency. What more can my right hon. Friend do to support the coach tourism sector specifically? Small family companies such as A & P Travel and Sleafordian Coaches have done so much to make their transport covid-secure. However, while the venues they support have received funding from the culture recovery fund and enhanced local authority grants, they have not. We need to ensure that when the theatres, museums and the like are able to reopen there is still a viable coach tourism industry to get their customers there.

Steve Barclay: The coach firms sector has been particularly impacted as a consequence of covid. That is why, in response, we worked with the Department for Education to provide over £70 million of funding for local transport. That has been to the benefit of many, including coach firms. Of course, the wider package of support—for example, the furlough scheme, the cash grants of up to £3,000 for businesses that are closed, the extended loans and so on—applies to the sector as it does to others. The wider package applies, but I also draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the specific education funding that has been provided, which I know has been a help to a number of coach firms.

Patricia Gibson: If there were no confusion about the furlough support for Scotland in the event of another lockdown, the right hon. Gentleman’s own Tory MPs and Members across the House would not need to constantly have to ask for clarification. That confusion and uncertainty is a failure of his own Government, after the Communities Secretary said that it would be for the Chancellor to decide at the time of any future Scottish lockdown. Will the Chief Secretary apologise for that confusion and uncertainty? Will he meet the Scottish Finance Secretary, who has been requesting a meeting since Saturday, to discuss funding for Scotland and put an end to the chaos, confusion and uncertainty which is detrimentally affecting jobs and businesses in Scotland?

Steve Barclay: I do find it somewhat surprising to be asked to have a meeting the day after I had a meeting with the First Minister of Scotland, who I assume spoke with the authority of the Scottish Finance Minister. I have regular meetings with the Scottish Finance Minister. I hope, and certainly feel from my point of view, that we  have a very constructive dialogue. It is in part due  to her representations that the Barnett guarantee—this unprecedented up-front guarantee—was put in place, and I look forward to further discussions with her in the weeks ahead.

Caroline Nokes: Pubs such as the Crown Inn in King’s Somborne are really concerned about how they will weather the coming lockdown. They make the not unreasonable point that if it is safe to sell takeaway food, it should also be safe to sell takeaway beer. Will my right hon. Friend look at this anomaly and see if he can throw a lifeline to these valuable community hubs?

Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. She will know that in terms of the epidemiology and the guidance, that is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, but she is right with these questions to point to the economic impact of the measures. That is something on which we continue to have close dialogue with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that she gets the clarification she seeks.

Ben Lake: Yesterday, the Prime Minister stated in the House:
“The furlough scheme is a UK-wide scheme and will continue to be available wherever it is needed.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 54.]
Will the Minister therefore confirm whether the Prime Minister was right and that furlough support will be available to Wales in the future, should public health priorities require restrictions to be reintroduced? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Steve Barclay: Several times now I have quoted what was said. The Prime Minister said that the Government will always be there to provide support to all parts of the United Kingdom. It is worth taking a step back and looking at the fact that the UK-wide ability to act is how we have been able to provide so much support across the UK with schemes such as the furlough scheme, the self-employed scheme, the loans, extensions and so forth. It is our ability to act across the United Kingdom that has helped many businesses to weather the storm.

Kieran Mullan: I begin by thanking the Government on behalf of the businesses and employers in my constituency that have benefited and will continue to benefit from the extraordinary steps that have been taken. However, we know that, sadly, people have already lost their jobs and we may expect future job losses. What more can we do to help people to overcome this incredibly difficult time in their lives, in terms of support for jobseekers and for retraining? I know that there are jobs out there, but this is about how we get people into those jobs in growing areas.

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. It is not just the number of jobs that are lost, but the duration of time that people are out of those jobs that is critical in mitigating the economic scarring that results from this pandemic. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in his winter plan the plan for jobs, which included £2 billion of funding for the kickstart scheme. I was speaking to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions this morning and I was  very pleased to hear about the progress that has already been made on the kickstart scheme, which is up and running and providing support to 16 to 24-year-olds across our constituencies. It is part of the wider package of support on training—the tripling of traineeships, the £2,000 for apprenticeships, the £2 billion on kickstart—and as we accelerate our infrastructure and bring back the green jobs, such as through the decarbonisation of public buildings, that will also offer new opportunities for training as we deliver that record infrastructure investment.

Caroline Lucas: The new grant scheme for businesses in the hospitality, leisure and accommodation sector is welcome, but those in my Brighton constituency need to know that all small and medium-sized enterprises in that sector will benefit. In particular, will the Minister scrap the business rates link and the rateable value cap from previous schemes, which caused such hardship? They meant, for example, that business tenants in shared buildings got nothing or that a pub owner in Brighton lost out because rateable values here are higher than in a place such as Bolton. Will he reassure them that they will not lose out again?

Steve Barclay: First, it is perfectly fair and reasonable to target a level of support shaped by the rateable value of the property, which is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done. The hon. Lady is right to point to the fact that within different local authorities there are different pressures, which is why in the £1.1 billion that has been allocated, we have given discretion to local authorities in their ability to then target support to businesses in the way that best meets local needs.

Craig Whittaker: I thank my right hon. Friend and the whole Treasury team for the remarkable job they are doing in these difficult times. However, I wish to highlight the plight of the people and businesses that have fallen through the financial gap. These are businesses that, through no fault of their own, have had to cease trading or are trading with a massive reduction in productivity, and are doing so without grants or access to salary, not because the Government have closed their business, but because they are in the supply chain that supplies the businesses that the Government have closed. Will he at least give reassurances that consideration is being given to these businesses, which have suffered huge losses in the past nine months? I am thinking of businesses such as the Little Valley Brewery in Calder Valley and the Robinwood outdoor education centre.

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is right to pick out the specific challenges faced by the supply chain, often because they supply multiple sectors; they may not be in a given sector where there are specific issues, but they supply across a number of sectors. So he is right about the issue. Part of the reason we have taken the universal approach on the wider package of schemes, whether on support for cash flow with the loans and grants, or on the direct measures to support the labour market through the furlough and self-employed income support schemes, is to recognise that once one tries to demarcate sectors, that becomes difficult in the supply chain. So part of the package of support that applies to the supply sector is provided through those universal schemes, but he is right about the issues that these businesses face.

Ian Mearns: Prior to this lockdown announcement, we had had almost universal calls for an extension to the full furlough scheme in areas with tighter restrictions, which Ministers had rejected for months. Despite that, the Government saw fit to announce a new version of this on Saturday, only hours before the previous furlough was due to be replaced by an inferior scheme for us in the north, as further restrictions were becoming inevitable in many areas. Many people in the north therefore now believe that until workers in the south were to be affected by the national lockdown, they were somehow thought to be worth less. Businesses in Gateshead and elsewhere are desperate for clarity and certainty to help them in planning and so that they know whether and how they can survive. Will the Chief Secretary commit today to publishing details of a comprehensive, ongoing financial support package available to businesses and their workers in areas that will continue to need it, where tiers of restrictions might, sadly, have to continue after 2 December?

Steve Barclay: First, on the suggestion that there has been a differentiated approach, the point is that a number of arrangements were put in place, for example, with the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, with civic leaders in your own Lancashire region, Mr Speaker, and with South Yorkshire, because we recognised that there were additional pressures in those communities. We also put in further support retrospectively, recognising that a number of areas had been in tier 2 restrictions for a period. So the suggestion that additional support had not been offered does not stand that scrutiny. If one takes the deputy chief medical officer’s advice, it was inappropriate previously to have a national lockdown—Professor Van-Tam set that out—but the pathway of the virus and the infection increase was such that a more comprehensive approach was taken. So this is a response to the health pandemic as much as a response to anything that is geographically determined.

Robert Largan: I welcome the extra support for the self-employed and the news that many of those who did not qualify for the initial furlough scheme will qualify under the extended scheme, but I want to ask the Minister about the bounce back loans, which have been a lifeline for so many businesses in my constituency. Back when they made the applications for those loans, businesses would not have foreseen that disruption would have gone on for so long, so can steps be taken to ensure that they can apply for top-ups to their initial loan and get through the difficult winter ahead?

Steve Barclay: In short, yes they can. My hon. Friend raises a valid point, which is that a number of businesses will have taken out loans for what they felt was their need at that time. Further restrictions have been placed on businesses, which is why we have extended the period for availability of loans to the end of the year. He is right about that, and I can provide him with that reassurance.

Tracy Brabin: The Minister explained that the response when he spoke to northern Mayors was about health data and not about regions, but he must accept that, by callously saying to workers in West Yorkshire and the north that they are on two thirds of pay, the Government have created a  north-south divide. That divide is unnecessary when we should be coming together as a country to deal with this pandemic. Will he ask the Chancellor for clarity about the restrictions and for confirmation that, when we come out of this national lockdown, no worker will be expected to earn two thirds of their pay, so that workers in low-paid jobs are not living in fear when they look ahead to Christmas with no money in the bank?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady is conflating several different issues. First, the furlough had not expired; it was running until the end of October. It applied universally until that point, so the suggestion of it being applied differently is simply not the case. Secondly, the purpose and the design of the job support scheme is different from the furlough. The furlough is a response to the need for people to stay at home. The job support scheme is intended to try to encourage them back. That is why the design is for at least 20% of hours—one day in the office. Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out on a number of occasions, the two-thirds support is dynamic in its interaction with the wider support through the £9 billion of additional welfare spending. One needs to look at the fact that there are two different purposes behind these two schemes, but the fundamental point is that there is no gap between the furlough that was due to expire on 30 October and the new furlough extension.

Stephen Hammond: I thank my right hon. Friend and the team for the package of support, which will save jobs and livelihoods across Wimbledon. He will know that since March, I have been raising the plight of people who are excluded from the scheme because they have been forced to close their businesses, so I support a number of the comments made about the self-employed. May I raise yet again with him industries such as events, exhibitions and hospitality supply, which are all excluded from the business rates scheme and the business grants scheme? They need that support if we are to have those vibrant contributors to the economy in the future.

Steve Barclay: I am aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised. I point him to the fact that, to date, the Treasury has spent more than £200 billion as part of our comprehensive package of support. We have applied a universal approach in terms of the furlough, loans, business grants and so forth, but I am happy to have further discussions with him in the weeks ahead.

Martin Docherty: While welcoming the news that the support will return to 80%, many people here in West Dunbartonshire and across Scotland regret the fact that this decision has been made at the last minute, when many have already made life-changing decisions in anticipation of the rate being reduced. To give those whom we will rely on to rebuild our economy some degree of certainty, will the Minister commit the Government to fill the gaps in the scheme so that freelancers and creatives—the excluded—can start to grow the companies of tomorrow?

Steve Barclay: I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the future fund, which has provided additional support. On the timing of the furlough extension, I refer him to  the answer I gave earlier. Those who have lost their jobs recently could come back through the furlough extension. Those employees employed as of 23 September—the day of the job support scheme announcement—and notified to HMRC by real-time information on or before that date who have since been made redundant can be rehired.

Kevin Hollinrake: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome the extension to the coronavirus loan schemes and the ability to top up bounce back loans. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that ability to top up loans also applies to the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme? Will he also look at bounce back loans for customers of non-bank lenders? According to research by the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, which I chair, around 250,000 businesses currently bank with non-bank lenders who do not have access to these schemes because they do not get access to the Bank of England term funding scheme. Will he look at that problem?

Steve Barclay: I can probably go one better than looking at it myself, because the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who leads on these matters in the Treasury, will have heard my hon. Friend’s representations and will do so. I know that he is looking at the issue of the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme specifically. On my hon. Friend’s second point, I think that there are 28 creditors, but I know that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will follow up with him.

Matt Western: The Chief Secretary will be aware that many businesses feel that the Government have acted arbitrarily in imposing restrictions on their sectors, and none more so than the hospitality and pub sector, with the 10 pm curfew. During the first lockdown, local independent brewers such as Slaughterhouse and Church Farm in my constituency, and also the independent pubs that they serve, such as the Somerville Arms and the Old Post Office, were able to sell takeaway alcohol, but that has now been banned by the Government. That will damage the sector dramatically. What has the Chancellor got against pubs?

Steve Barclay: Not least through the eat out to help out scheme, one can see the Chancellor’s support to this sector. Also, VAT was cut from 20% to 5%, and many within the sector have benefited, particularly from the wider universal package of schemes such as the furlough scheme. The exact health advice, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), is a matter for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I will relay the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to him, but this is driven by the epidemiology and the health data; it is not a question of the Treasury acting arbitrarily, as he says.

James Wild: The Government’s financial support has included the very welcome £200 million for hospices. However, the Norfolk Hospice in my constituency has warned that the national restrictions and the closure of charity shops will result in a loss of income of £100,000, so will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the Care Minister meets  the sector tomorrow, a package of urgent support can be put in place for hospices, their patients and their families?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend raises an issue that unites the House. The huge value of the work done by the hospice movement was recognised as part of the package of measures put in place by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, with £750 million of support for the charity sector and with the hospice movement being specifically identified. I am happy to continue working with my hon. Friend as we work together, and we recognise the importance of that sector.

Toby Perkins: Many small business owners have been forced to raid their personal savings to keep their businesses afloat over the past eight months, but that is not a bottomless pit. Many small business owners are not wealthy people, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury must understand that if they go under, the whole company goes with them. The Treasury has now had eight months to get this scheme working. Why is it still excluding 3 million people? Does he not recognise how perilous the situation is for many of those businesses?

Steve Barclay: I drew attention earlier to the fact that more than £13 billion had been allocated to the self-employed income support scheme and through the income support grant. That indicates the support that the Treasury has given. The hon. Gentleman draws out, as the Chair of the Treasury Committee did, the specific issues around company directors. I have set out to the House the difficulty of clarifying precisely what is earned income as opposed to dividend income, but it is worth drawing the House’s attention to the fact that more than £13 billion of support has been allocated.

Andrew Gwynne: Before lockdown 2, more than 2,000 jobs based at Manchester Airport were reported to be at risk. The Government have provided business rates relief to thousands of retail businesses, including £700 million to the likes of Tesco, which have seen huge increases in profits throughout lockdown. Will the Government now step in to relieve 2020-21 airport business rates, following the introduction of a new travel ban, by funding the difference to local councils?

Steve Barclay: As I mentioned earlier, within the £1.1 billion of support to local authorities, we have given them discretion to respond to local needs, and that includes Greater Manchester as a region. On the airport sector specifically, one reason why we have allocated more than £12 billion to test and trace is that one of the key issues, as I was told by that sector, is the importance of travellers being able to be tested quickly and released sooner than has been the case in recent weeks. We are working extremely hard on that issue, because that is one of the key measures, alongside the financial support to local authorities, that would make a real difference to the airport sector.

John Lamont: I very much welcome the commitment that we heard yesterday from the Prime Minister that the furlough scheme will extend to Scotland whenever it is needed. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that  the self-employment support scheme will also extend to my constituents in Scotland, ensuring that self-employed people are not left behind?

Steve Barclay: As I said earlier, these are UK-wide schemes. We continue to listen and engage, but the schemes apply on a UK-wide basis. That has been the case throughout, and that continues to be the case now.

Justin Madders: I am sure that we have all heard heartbreaking stories about people who have been unable to claim for self-employment support because they had not registered or submitted a tax return for 2018-19. It seems that those people are still excluded from any support. Some of them have been trading for 18 months now. They are clearly not fraudulent and they clearly deserve some support; why cannot they get some?

Steve Barclay: As we referred to earlier, the point is that the package of support includes the £9 billion of welfare measures and the support that is available through local authorities and targeted at their discretion. I have also set out that there are those within that excluded population, for example those who were employed, who may be able to qualify for the extension, but for the reasons that we have covered in a number of earlier replies, part of the challenge from the Public Accounts Committee has been ensuring that we have the right operational controls in place, and that has been one of the difficulties with the cohorts to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Alicia Kearns: The Government’s bounce back and business interruption loan schemes have made a huge difference across the country, including the £90 million to support businesses in Rutland and Melton. What assessment has the Chief Secretary made regarding the macroeconomic impact of these loan schemes?

Steve Barclay: I very much welcome the impact that the various support measures have had on Rutland and on the businesses in my hon. Friend’s area. As for the impact of the various measures, the Office for Budget Responsibility produces an independent assessment of that, and it will do so on 25 November. That will provide an updated position, addressing the impacts to which she refers.

Zarah Sultana: While this week the Government have extended the mortgage holiday for homeowners, they have refused to help tenants, pay their rent or stop them facing evictions, even if they have lost their job or been placed on furlough. How exactly does the Minister think that that is fair, and will he instead commit to helping renters in Coventry South by immediately putting a stop to all eviction proceedings, reintroducing the evictions ban and cancelling rent arrears for all tenants?

Steve Barclay: There is, of course, a balance to be struck between the interests of those who are renting and those who rent out properties who also have financial pressures. The hon. Lady referred to the support that has been given, but the best support that can be given to those facing such bills is to help as many of them as possible to retain their jobs, and that is fundamentally what the package of support that we have put in place seeks to achieve.

Jack Brereton: Further to the points about supply chains, many manufacturers in the ceramics industry in Stoke-on-Trent very much depend on industries such as hospitality and retail, so will my right hon. Friend agree to look at what more support can be given to those industries where order books have severely diminished?

Steve Barclay: I recognise the point made by my hon. Friend. I have spoken about the impact on the sectors to which he refers. That is why such a comprehensive package of support has been set out, including through the job retention scheme, which will now run until 2 December; the generous support for the self-employed; the cash grants of up to £3,000 per month for businesses; the £1.1 billion of council support; and the plans to extend the various loans, and indeed the future fund, to the end of January. This all recognises the wider pressures to which he refers.

Liam Byrne: Unemployment here in the west midlands is soaring to a level that we last saw in the 1980s, but our Mayor has proved so ineffective that we have failed to secure 95% of what we have asked for in our recovery plan. Yesterday the International Monetary Fund’s chief economist called on Governments to bring forward large-scale investment to kickstart demand. In May, the Government set out their capital budget of £358 billion over the next five years. When are the Government going to allocate that capital budget, will the Chief Secretary maximise what is brought forward into the eye of the storm to kickstart demand for next year, and will he, for the first time, guarantee that the west midlands, at long last, will secure its fair share of that money?

Steve Barclay: I am slightly surprised to have a question from a former Chief Secretary that does not recognise the infrastructure investment that the Prime Minister set out in the summer and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor updated the House on through his summer economic update, including the £2 billion going into green jobs and public sector decarbonisation, and the massive investment in High Speed 2, in road investment strategy 2, and in control period 6 through the various rail schemes that the Government have committed to. We are accelerating the delivery of that infrastructure through Project Speed.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to speak to the fact that there is a jobs challenge, and I think the concerns about the pressure on employment are shared across the House. That is why it is so important to get the right training package in place. That was addressed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 24 September with his winter plan setting out schemes such as the kickstart scheme, which is up and running and is already delivering results. That is how, together, we will weather the storm in terms of bringing forward infrastructure investment but also reskilling people where they do lose their jobs.

Mike Wood: Clearly hospitality and retail have had a particularly difficult time since the spring, but, as hon. Friends have said, there are very many businesses that may not quite come under hospitality, retail or leisure but rely almost entirely on those sectors for their business. Will my right hon. Friend look at how industries such as brewing, pub supply chains, events and weddings can access the support that the  Government have provided, such as through the grants and business rate holidays, so that they can protect their jobs and still be growing and thriving once this pandemic is beaten?

Steve Barclay: First, I refer to the answer I gave earlier about the universal nature of the package. Another such area that my hon. Friend did not mention is the fishing sector, which was particularly impacted not only through its supply of the restaurant trade but through its exports, which were also hit. We have listened to concerns there and put in some additional support. But the best way we will support businesses, whether in the wedding sector or elsewhere, is by getting the virus down. That is why we have taken the comprehensive measures that we have for the next four weeks. That is the best way to be able to open up these sectors and get the people who have been furloughed or supported through the self-employed scheme on to the job support scheme, where they will then qualify for the furlough bonus, which will be further support that is available.

Peter Grant: For all the Minister’s sweet talking, the simple fact is that nearly eight months after the first lockdown was imposed, millions of self-employed people and small businesses are still being excluded from Government support. He has spoken approvingly today of comments from a recent Public Accounts Committee report, so may I draw his attention to the Committee’s 20th report of this Session, unanimously agreed by a Committee with a Conservative majority?
The report says:
“The Committee is disappointed that, so long after the beginning of the pandemic, HMRC has still not made sufficient use of its data to identify small businesses which have been left out of previous support packages, and therefore maximise taxpayer eligibility for grant support.”
Can the Minister not accept that the Committee’s disappointment reflects a view widely held among all parties in the House and that it is time for the excluded 3 million to be supported by actions, not just words?

Steve Barclay: I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman talks of actions when, as a result of our ability to operate UK-wide, we have been able to support nearly 1 million jobs in Scotland. Some 65,000 businesses in Scotland have benefited from the UK Government loan schemes and, as of 31 August, 242,600 employments were furloughed, at a take-up rate of 10%. Significant support has been offered to businesses in Scotland, as indeed it has been to businesses throughout the UK. It is odd that the hon. Gentleman talks about actions and ignores the nearly 1 million jobs that have been supported as a result of the actions that the UK Government have taken.

Selaine Saxby: Tourism and hospitality businesses have worked hard to get back on their feet, so although I welcome the additional support that my right hon. Friend has announced, will he do all he can to help them to welcome back visitors in the spring?

Steve Barclay: I absolutely support my hon. Friend in her desire to see those businesses able to bounce back, which obviously requires us to get the virus rate down. We recognise that restrictions have affected tourism and hospitality businesses in particular, which is why we have put in place additional support. We will continue  to look at ways to support those industries, but the key to doing so is to reduce the rate of infection through the measures that the Prime Minister announced yesterday.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for all that he has done; it is good to have the help.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister assured me that aid was coming to Northern Ireland businesses whose trade is affected by the lockdown here on the mainland. Will the Minister outline what form the aid will take for suppliers who have to cease operations? We should be ever mindful of the regional differences, with the Northern Ireland circuit break and tiers 1, 2 and 3 here on the mainland. On Thursday night, there will be a total lockdown here, whereas we will come out of the circuit break next week. What help will there be for businesses in Northern Ireland whose supplies travel across the water?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the impact on businesses in Northern Ireland and part of that coming through its interconnectivity with the rest of the United Kingdom. As I said in an earlier answer, we will update the Northern Ireland Executive this week on the enhanced Barnett guarantee, but that unprecedented action taken to give an up-front guarantee will enable the Northern Ireland Executive to provide support to businesses. Of course, it will be for them to determine the exact scope of that business support.

Peter Bone: I congratulate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Government team on the support that they have given the British people during this pandemic. I understand that No. 10 has confirmed that the Treasury has done a full economic impact assessment; will the Chief Secretary confirm that and say when it will be published? It will be very helpful if it is published before tomorrow’s vote.

Steve Barclay: As Members would expect, all decisions are informed by economic analysis. In terms of an impact assessment, the Office for Budget Responsibility will update its forecasts on 25 November. It is right that we have an independent forecast, and that will be produced in a matter of weeks.

Rachael Maskell: Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he will be doing much more to support the voluntary sector. Bearing in mind that 10% of charities are likely to fold, with a deficit of £10 billion accumulated over six months, what more will the Treasury be putting on the table and when will that be apparent?

Steve Barclay: As the Prime Minister has already set out, we put in place a £750 million package of support for the charity sector, as part of the more than £200 billion of support that we have given. As he has also said, and clearly demonstrated over recent months, he will continue to listen and adapt as circumstances require.

Ruth Cadbury: In response to earlier questions, the Minister said the Government were reluctant to extend additional financial support to the self-employed because of the need for strict financial controls, so why are the Chancellor’s team not as concerned about financial discipline when  committing £12 billion of public sector money to the private sector for covid programmes, and doing so without basic procurement disciplines around proven competency, value for money and minimum performance targets?

Steve Barclay: That is simply not correct because the Department of Health, to which we have allocated funding for Track and Trace, is subject to managing public money rules in the same way as any other Department. It is subject to the decisions of its accounting officer and its Ministers in the usual way, so the normal managing public money rules would apply.

Eleanor Laing: I am terribly sorry, but I missed out the hon. Member for St Ives—Derek Thomas.

Derek Thomas: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope it is worth waiting for.
Can I thank the Chief Secretary for all that is being done to help my constituents in west Cornwall and on Scilly? One of the great successes of recent years is the job growth across Cornwall, and that is because small businesses have been set up by entrepreneurs—individuals who know they cannot get a big job in big business, because they do not exist in Cornwall, so they have set up their business. The problem is that they are very early in their business, and they are growing, maturing and flourishing, but this year has been a disaster for them. They are at a point now where they just do not know if it is worth continuing, because of his second lockdown being announced, and they just do not know what the future holds. Will the Chief Secretary look very carefully at how we can encourage these people to stick with it, but also look at, as we have discussed already this afternoon many times, the support that is available to these fledgling businesses so they really have the finances to sustain these jobs? We must make sure these businesses can be part of the recovery that we will so badly need next year and beyond.

Steve Barclay: As my hon. Friend knows, it was largely down to his representations that specific support was put in place—for example, to maintain the ferry link that I know was critical for his constituents—and he deserves great credit for the convincing case that he presented to the Treasury, which secured that additional funding. On the wider point about support to the business community, it is in recognition of the importance of those small businesses that the Government have allocated over £13 billion of support to the self-employment income support scheme, but it is also why the Chancellor has put in place additional measures, such as extending the loans that are available to help those businesses get through this period to, hopefully, the more beneficial period as we come out of the winter period.

Aaron Bell: I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement, and I thank all the Treasury team for all the work they have done throughout this pandemic and the agility they have shown in rapidly changing circumstances. Can I also put on record my thanks to those people who have had to implement that? The IT systems in HMRC have stood up incredibly well to a lot of brand new schemes. My constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme will welcome the extension and enhancement of furlough and the  self-employed scheme. For their benefit and for the benefit of the whole House, could he set out how the generosity of those schemes compares internationally and how we are doing in this country compared with the rest of the world?

Steve Barclay: First, I thank my hon. Friend for recognising the huge contribution of officials in HMRC, the Treasury and, indeed, across Whitehall in ensuring that that business support was delivered at the pace it has been. On the international comparison, I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the report of the director of the IMF just last week, which I think is probably the best illustration of the way that the UK package of support is seen as offering one of the most comprehensive packages of support. It was recognised by the IMF and I think that shows where it stands in terms of international comparison.

Matthew Pennycook: When concerns were voiced earlier about the implications that flow from the fact that rateable values in some parts of the country are far higher than in others, the Chief Secretary could only point to discretionary grant funding. However, not only has the detailed guidance that would allow local authorities to distribute that discretionary funding not yet been published, but it will be distributed on the basis of a flat rate of £20 per head, irrespective of geographical area, as he knows. So can the Chief Secretary first ensure that that guidance is published promptly, so that local authorities can plan, but also look again at better tailoring support to account for variations in rateable value across the country?

Steve Barclay: I will take away the fair point that the hon. Gentleman raises about publishing guidance and seek to respond to it constructively. In terms of the £20 a head, often representations have been made to me in the Chamber that it is vital for the Government to move at pace to deliver schemes quickly, and to do so fairly. Without reprising the previous urgent question where the Mayor of Greater Manchester, according to the Labour Front-Bench team, was acting for Great  Britain in a way that the Mayor of the Liverpool city region and others were not, which I felt was an unfair characterisation of their position, the point is that we need to deploy schemes quickly, which is why we have taken the approach that we have.

David Jones: I am sorry, at the end of this session, to have to raise the issue of furlough yet again but, as my right hon. Friend knows, the economies of north Wales and the north-west of England are very closely integrated and Welsh tourism and leisure businesses in particular are heavily dependent on trade from across that border. The Welsh lockdown imposed by the Welsh Government is due to come to an end on 9 November—some four days after the lockdown in England is anticipated to begin. Welsh leisure and tourism businesses will not be precluded from reopening by the Welsh Government, but in reality it will be purposeless for them to do so because the trade from England will not be there. Can my right hon. Friend say whether Welsh businesses that are affected by lockdown measures imposed in England will be able to access the coronavirus job retention scheme?

Steve Barclay: I know that my right hon. Friend is a strong supporter of the Union and part of the strength of the furlough scheme has been its ability to provide support across the United Kingdom; it is a UK-wide scheme. Thanks to the Treasury’s ability to operate a UK-wide scheme, we have been able to put in place more than £200 billion of support—the comprehensive package that I mentioned a moment ago—which is why it stands international comparison in terms of its scale and speed. That was recognised by the IMF director just last week, and the furlough will continue to be a UK-wide scheme.

Eleanor Laing: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those anticipating the next item of business, we will suspend the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Tulip Siddiq: (Urgent Question):  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, if he will make a statement on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

James Cleverly: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for raising this question. We are deeply concerned that Iran has issued new charges against Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. This is indefensible and unacceptable. We are relieved that the groundless new trial, which commenced on 2 November, was adjourned and that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe remains on furlough, but we will continue to call on Iran to make Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release permanent.
On 29 October, we summoned the Iranian ambassador to make clear our deep concerns about these new charges. We fully support the family’s request for officials from the embassy in Tehran to attend any court hearings. The UK Government issued a note of avowal formally requesting UK Government attendance at Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s recent 2 November hearing. So far, regrettably, we have not been granted access to Iranian judicial hearings of any of our dual British national detainees. We will continue to firmly lobby for access to them.
On 22 September, we summoned the Iranian ambassador and handed over a letter from E3 Foreign Ministers about the human rights situation in Iran, including our shared concern about the arbitrary detention of dual nationals. The ambassador in Tehran will continue to raise this with his Iranian counterpart. The Foreign Secretary has spoken directly to Foreign Minister Zarif three times since the summer and continues to raise the situation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other UK dual nationals in the strongest terms.
Since the Foreign Secretary was last at the Dispatch Box both he and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials have been in regular contact with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family. The Foreign Secretary has spoken with both Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her husband, when he reiterated that the UK Government, from the Prime Minister down, remain committed to doing everything we can for her.
The UK Government continue to engage with international partners and directly with the Government of Iran on the full range of issues of interest to the UK. Our priority remains to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, to promote stability and security in the region, to secure the release of all our dual national detainees, and to keep the diplomatic door open for a new talks with Iran.
Alongside our E3 partners, we are committed to the nuclear deal with Iran—the joint comprehensive plan of action, or JCPOA—as the best means available to monitor and constrain Iran’s nuclear programme. As we have said before, we are deeply concerned by Iranian non-compliance. Iran must engage with the dispute resolution mechanism, which we triggered with France and Germany on 14 January, and return to compliance. We also continue to have serious concerns regarding the implications for the security of the region with the expiry date of the United Nations conventional arms embargo on 18 October.
I can assure the House that the safety and good treatment of all dual national British detainees in Iran remains a top priority of the UK Government. We will continue to lobby at all levels for their permanent release on humanitarian grounds so that they can return home safely to their loved ones.

Tulip Siddiq: Before I begin, I would like to thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this urgent question, because I am aware that there is a lot of parliamentary business on at the moment.
The case of my constituent is well-rehearsed. She was arrested in Iran in 2016 and was handed a five-year sentence. We had dared to dream that she would be returning home next year in April, until last week, when she was told that she would be facing new trumped-up charges. As the Minister has pointed out, she went to court yesterday prepared to put forward her defence, and she was told that her case had been adjourned. Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has told her family that she is sleepless with worry anticipating the next move from the Iranian authorities.
Before I ask the Minister some questions, I want to raise the issue of the £400 million debt that we owe Iran. The date for the court hearing for the debt was meant to be today, but last week we were told it was being postponed. On the very same day last week, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was told that she faces trumped-up new charges against her, that she has to go to court and that she may be sent back to prison. That was not a coincidence; it is a punishment.
I want to ask the Minister the following questions. Did the Government anticipate or risk-assess the consequences for Nazanin when they agreed to postpone the IMS debt hearing? Secondly, as we know, Nazanin is not the only British citizen being held as a political hostage in Iran. How many prisoners have the Government managed to get access to since the British embassy in Iran reopened in 2015? Is it more than zero? The Minister has touched on UK officials not being present at Nazanin’s court hearing yesterday. Will he clarify exactly what date they requested to attend and whether it was simply asked for, or was it asserted as a consular right? Finally, can the Minister give any examples of how Nazanin’s status of diplomatic protection has been or will be deployed by our Government to make a material difference in her case?
I know that the Government have continually denied the link between the debt that we owe Iran and Nazanin’s imprisonment, but burying our heads in the sand is costing my constituent her life. I know the Government have a lot on their plate at the moment with the pandemic, but I know the Minister well and I know he wants to bring Nazanin home. I am asking him to do a bit more and to try harder to resolve this debt issue, so that we can end the cycle of despair for Nazanin and her family.
I will finish by saying that this is my sixth urgent question about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in this House, and I sincerely hope it is the last one I will be asking.

James Cleverly: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, for her tireless campaigning on behalf of her constituent and more widely on the other British dual national detainees in Iran. It is commendable. She raises the question of the delay in the hearing about the IMS debt. As she said in her comments, these are unrelated issues. However, the  adjournment of the November hearing is at the request of the Iranian Ministry of Defence. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further on ongoing legal positions in regard to that.
The hon. Lady also speaks about our requests for access to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other British dual national detainees. That is something we continue to do. Requesting does not guarantee us access—indeed, demanding does not guarantee us access. What we are doing at every stage, while working with the Iranian Government at every level, is what we genuinely believe is in the best interests of our dual national detainees to secure their permanent release on humanitarian grounds, so that they can return home and be with their families.

Thomas Tugendhat: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this urgent question on such an important matter. Her campaign for her constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been inspiring, but the Minister knows that many other Brits are being held. Will he please confirm that he will be dealing with all Brits being held by the Iranian regime? Will he also agree that the attempts by the Iranian Government to connect the IMS debt and the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe would seem to suggest that she is not being held on the charges that they claim, but actually is just a hostage? That would cheapen Iranian justice. Surely the Iranian Government would never argue that case again.

James Cleverly: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The British Government’s position is clear. We do not link this to the debt, but we do not dispute that there is a 40-year-old debt, and we continue to explore options to resolve it. I will not comment further, because this is an ongoing situation. He is right to raise the plight of other British dual nationals in detention in Iran. We make the case strongly and regularly for the full, permanent release—not just release on furlough—of all British dual nationals held in detention.

Lisa Nandy: I add my voice to those thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her refusal to give up, her persistence on behalf of her constituent, and for ensuring that the voice of Nazanin and her family is heard in this House and beyond. As my hon. Friend said, it is four and a half years since Nazanin was first arbitrarily detained by the Iranian authorities, and just as the end of her original five-year sentence is in sight, she faces the terrifying prospect of a second trial—for which there is no evidence or legal justification—for more crimes that she did not commit, which could extend her detention still further.
The adjournment of Nazanin’s hearing on Monday delays a potential further miscarriage of justice, but also any prospect of a conclusion to a truly unimaginable ordeal. We believe that the threat of reincarceration, the constant harassment by members of Iran’s revolutionary guard, the repeated delay to judicial hearings, and the levelling of false charges are tantamount to mental torture, and I would be grateful if the Minister told the House whether the Government share that view. They have rightly voiced opposition to Nazanin’s return to  prison during a second trial. It is welcome that the Foreign Secretary has made representations generally about Nazanin’s case, but can the Minister say whether the Government have made representations, through the Foreign Secretary, specifically on the issue of the return to prison during a second trial?
Almost two months ago, I asked the Foreign Secretary about the historical debt that is owed, and whether he agrees with the Defence Secretary, who acknowledged that there is a debt to be paid; the Foreign Secretary said that he did. At an Iranian Foreign Ministry press briefing yesterday, officials repeated that they are pursuing this debt. No one in this House accepts the legitimacy of any direct link between the debt and the arbitrary detention of dual nationals, including Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, Anousheh Ashoori and others. However, there is the prospect of our putting our relations with Iran on a better footing if we resolve this issue, which has dragged on for decades, in which there is a clear legal obligation on the UK, and in regard to which the Defence Secretary has described the UK’s behaviour as “un-British” and obfuscatory.
I was very concerned to hear the Minister’s response to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn asked about the date for a hearing. Will the Minister tell us what steps he has taken in the last two months to progress this issue and find a resolution that ensures that this historical debt does not present an ongoing obstacle to the safe and swift return of Nazanin and other British-Iranian dual nationals? Does he agree with the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) that if Nazanin is released soon, the acknowledgement of our historical debt will have paid an important part in the release?
The Minister knows that this is not a party political matter, and that Members in all parts of the House have voiced their full support for Nazanin’s release. As we approach the fifth Christmas that Nazanin will be unable to spend with her family, I hope that he can give us his assurance that everything in the Government’s power is being done to bring her safely home.

James Cleverly: I can only reiterate the point I made about the debt. We recognise that the debt is due, and we are working to resolve this. It is a 40-year-old debt, and we are exploring options to bring this to a conclusion. It is not possible for me to comment further or in more detail on this, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will understand why.
On the new charges being brought against Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, our position is clear: they are indefensible and completely unacceptable. The hon. Lady mentions the other British dual nationals in incarceration. Our passion for securing their permanent release is just as strong as our passion in the case of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. As I said, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, I and, indeed, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have this as an absolute priority. I have already mentioned the number of occasions on which the Foreign Secretary has spoken directly with his opposite numbers, the times when the Iranian ambassador has been called in and, indeed, when Her Majesty’s ambassador in Tehran has raised this issue. It is and will remain a top priority for the Government. We welcome the fact that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe has not been sent back to prison. However, that is not enough. We continue to work for  her full, permanent release and that of the other British dual nationals in incarceration. We will not rest until that is accomplished.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing the urgent question on this vital matter and the cross-party agreement that Nazanin should be returned to the UK, with all the charges dropped. Recent reports suggest that the Iranian revolutionary guard corps has constantly harassed Nazanin while she has been in Iran. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such behaviour is totally and utterly unacceptable and that we need to proscribe the IRGC in its entirely to send the strongest possible signal to Iran that its behaviour cannot be tolerated?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend will know that it is a long-standing convention that we do not discuss future proscriptions or sanctions. He makes a broader point about the international standing of Iran. I can only assume that Iran wishes to be brought back into the international fold, but, for that, its behaviour must change.
As I said, we regard the treatment of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other British dual national detainees to be completely unacceptable and we strongly urge the Iranian regime to do the right thing and release all British dual national detainees on humanitarian grounds so that they can return permanently to their families and loved ones.

Brendan O'Hara: Let me once again put on record the SNP’s unequivocal condemnation of the Iranian Government for the outrageous detention of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I repeat our call for her immediate and unconditional release. Nazanin, her husband Richard and their young daughter have been treated appallingly by the regime in Tehran. If, as the Minister says, this is the Prime Minister’s top priority, I feel she will be let down again, having been let down by him while he was Foreign Secretary.
The UK Government have finally acknowledged that the outstanding debt owed to Iran is a major factor in the ongoing illegal detention of Nazanin. What discussions have been had to explore practical and legal ways to repay the debt? What advice has the Department sought and received on whether that could be done in the form of humanitarian aid supplies?

James Cleverly: As I have said on a number of occasions, the debt, which we recognise, is unrelated. We are seeking ways to resolve this 40-year-old debt, but I am unwilling to go into further details about that as it is an ongoing situation. I would, however, echo the hon. Member’s point that the incarceration of all British dual national detainees in Iran is unacceptable and they should be released.

Andrew Murrison: I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for the tireless and impressive work she has done on behalf of her constituent. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the likely impact of June’s presidential election in Tehran on Nazanin’s case? Obviously, Quds commander Qasem Soleimani will not be in the frame, but he was the front runner. Does my right hon. Friend feel he can make progress where previously that was not the case? To  what extent does he feel that his interlocutors, Ministers Zarif and Araghchi, can have influence since the IRGC, which is actually pulling the strings, is very much separate from those to whom he speaks regularly?

James Cleverly: I thank my right hon. Friend for his work in this role prior to my tenure. He makes a strong point about the need to maintain working relations with a number of individuals in the Iranian Government, and we seek to do so. Ultimately,
I am not sure it is useful for me to speculate about the outcome of elections or which individuals may be in what posts, because the UK’s position will be unchanged: the detention is illegitimate, all the British dual national detainees should be released and we will continue to work with whoever is in whichever role to achieve that.

Barry Sheerman: I thank my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who has worked so tirelessly on this campaign. Perhaps we might try a slightly different approach and tone. I have had the privilege of conversations with Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, regarding an all-faith delegation to Tehran to discuss the cases. Possibly, there is a chance that an all-party delegation could go to Iran specifically for that purpose. At the moment, I know that Iran will not accept delegations, but perhaps the mood music will change after today and we might get, particularly, an all-faith delegation. If the ministerial team made that possible, perhaps we would get some beneficial results.

James Cleverly: I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting forward ideas he believes may be useful to bring about the goals that we all want. I am unsure about the effectiveness of that one, but I am willing to receive any ideas from him. We will continue working, and to explore ideas with whoever puts them forward. I commend the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn for engaging with us regularly. Ultimately, we are all—across party and right across the House—trying to achieve a resolution and to have the British dual national detainees returned home.

Alexander Stafford: I thank my right hon. Friend for his commitment to Nazanin’s case and for taking such a clear position that she should not be sent back to jail. Does he agree that Iran’s attempt to exploit dual nationals for political gain is unacceptable and that we should continue to lobby strongly for their release?

James Cleverly: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Ultimately, he is right: the responsibility lies with the Government of Iran, the Iranian regime. We remain committed to securing immediate, full and permanent release. While we are pleased that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe has not been returned to Evin prison, that is not the end of the matter. We will continue to work to have her and the other detainees return home.

Layla Moran: I thank the Minister for his responses so far and I share the House’s view that this is absolutely ridiculous, that we are still here talking not just about Nazanin, but about all those political prisoners who are being detained. I am particularly concerned about Anousheh Ashouri and his susceptibility to covid-19. Specifically, which other detainees is the Minister aware of who also have  susceptibility to covid-19, and what assurances will he give the House that robust conversations have been had about their getting specific medical attention for the those comorbidities?

James Cleverly: The welfare of all our British dual nationals imprisoned in Iran remains a priority, and we have raised their cases at the most senior level, in particular with discussions about health vulnerabilities. Ultimately—I find myself coming back to this point, but it is the fundamental one—the very best thing that we can do for all of them is to secure their permanent release back to their families at the earliest opportunity. That is what we will continue to work towards.

Paul Bristow: I, too, commend the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her relentless work on behalf of her constituent. I also commend the Minister for all the work that he is doing to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Will he join me in urging the Iranian Government now to release all UK dual nationals who are being arbitrarily detained and allow them to return home to their families in the UK?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is in the gift of the Iranian regime. We will continue to call on it to do the right thing, which is to release all British dual nationals in incarceration and allow them to return.

Carla Lockhart: I wholeheartedly support the comments made by other hon. Members. I urge the Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the Prime Minister to bolster efforts to bring Nazanin home. Her life of fear is similar to that lived by many religious minorities in Iran. Earlier this year, the Christian human rights activist Mary Fatemeh Mohammadi received a suspended prison sentence of three months and a directive to receive a flogging of 10 lashes. What is the Minister doing to protect religious minorities in Iran?

James Cleverly: We continue to have concerns about Iran’s human rights record and the treatment of minorities. Although that is an allied issue, it is separate to that of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other dual national detainees. We continue to work with Iran at all levels to encourage it to improve its human rights record.

Tom Randall: I also commend the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her efforts in this area. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department is doing everything in its power to ensure that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe receives all the necessary medical care during this difficult time?

James Cleverly: We regularly raise health and welfare concerns with the Iranian Government at the most senior levels. The Foreign Secretary continues to raise the UK’s concerns with his opposite number Foreign Minister Zarif. We will continue to raise such issues until these people are allowed home.

Christian Wakeford: I, too, thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this important urgent question. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for  Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) in that Nazanin is not the only one who has fallen foul of a malign Iran’s attack on human rights.
The UN conventional arms embargo on Iran expired last month, in line with the 2015 nuclear deal, which failed to address Iran’s human rights abuses and detention of foreign citizens. The UK’s decision to abstain on the UN Security Council resolution to extend the embargo was regrettable. Will my right hon. Friend explain how the UK plans to address Iran’s regional aggressions, which represent one of the most pressing challenges to international peace and security and British foreign policy interests?

James Cleverly: We have long been clear about our concerns about Iran’s continued destabilising activity throughout the region, including its political, financial and military support for a number of militant and proscribed groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen. We will continue to work with international partners to promote stability and security in the region and to do everything we can to ensure that that activity ceases.

Andrew Gwynne: I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for championing the rights of her constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and for securing this urgent question. The United Nations has ruled that Nazanin’s imprisonment is unlawful and ordered Iran to release her. What more can the British Government do to work through the wider international community to put pressure on Iran to follow its international obligations?

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is good that we have international support on our calls, which reflects our belief that the charges are illegitimate and that her detention and that of other British dual nationals is unacceptable. We will continue to work with international partners and directly with Iran to secure all their releases, and we are grateful for the international support that we have received on this issue.

Jeremy Wright: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on not only what she said today but all she has said for her constituent. I echo the call for Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s proceedings to be ended forthwith, but if that is not the case, I am sure my right hon. Friend will accept that the fairness and transparency of the next set of proceedings against her will become fundamental. Will he redouble his efforts to ensure that those proceedings are observed by a representative  of the UK Government and/or those who represent international organisations? I ask him to accept and to communicate that if these proceedings are fair—if these charges are fairly laid and are to be fairly tried—the Iranians have no reason to prevent the world from seeing them.

James Cleverly: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. We are seeking to be allowed to attend any future hearings. Our embassy in Tehran formally requested that last week, and we have consistently made the point with the Iranian Ministry of Foreign  Affairs. We are committed to securing the immediate and permanent release of all arbitrarily detained British dual nationals. The point he makes about the Iranian regime acting transparently is a good one.

Kenny MacAskill: The Iranian regime’s behaviour is reprehensible, but there are moderate voices within Iranian society, including President Rouhani. Does the Minister accept that unilateral action by the USA, including targeted executions, worsens the situation for all? Will he therefore ensure that the UK’s diplomatic efforts to ensure Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release are in line with those of European partners, not those of an American President, whoever is elected today?

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Iranian people are famed through history for their science and culture, and our criticism is not of the broader Iranian people; it is of the behaviour of the Iranian Government. I would be very uncomfortable making comments that might be perceived to give excuses to those in the Iranian regime who seek to arbitrarily detain Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and others. It is their actions that we should be focused on. It is their choice to detain these people, and it is in their gift to release them. We should be relentlessly focused on their behaviour and the decisions that they have made.

Stella Creasy: I join others in recognising the determination and commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on this matter for her constituent. This has gone on for five years. The Government granted Nazanin diplomatic protection status over a year ago. Can the Minister tell us what has changed in the Government’s approach since then and what difference that has made? Many of my constituents who share a deep concern for Nazanin’s future are wondering what difference that made.

James Cleverly: Our ability to support Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe is determined in large part by the behaviour of the Iranian Government. We have made it clear on numerous occasions that we want to have access to our dual national detainees. We now have the opportunity to speak directly with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, which is welcome. But ultimately, we will continue to do what we believe to be in her best interests and those of the other detained British dual nationals, and we will continue working with the Iranian Government, within the limitations that they impose, to secure their permanent release.

Alicia Kearns: If Iran is going to come in from the cold, it has to start to comply with basic values of international law. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that starts with its respecting basic principles of human rights and ending its policy of industrialised hostage diplomacy? This current policy of taking dual nationals such as Nazanin hostage shows that it has zero intentions of ever engaging meaningfully with the international rules-based system.

James Cleverly: Ultimately, we do want to see the Iranian Government come back into the international sphere, but the decisions that will enable them to do so are in their gift. Their permanent release of British dual  nationals in detention would be a very positive step in the right direction, and we will continue to call on them to do that.

David Linden: From Craigend down to Carmyle, my inbox last week was flooded by constituents wanting to see Nazanin brought home. Given that I think most fair-minded people would agree that the Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, very much bungled things last time around, can the Minister tell us what the Prime Minister is doing personally to try to intervene in this case and raise it at the highest levels of Government?

James Cleverly: I have spoken with the Prime Minister about this issue, and I know that it remains a priority for him. It is very much a priority for the Foreign Secretary, me and the FCDO. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House of our passion for working towards the permanent release of British dual nationals in detention; it remains an absolute priority for us, and we will continue doing what we can to bring about their permanent release. Our actions will be relentlessly focused on that, and I can assure him that it remains a priority throughout Government.

John Howell: In view of the growing normalisation between Arab states and Israel in an anti-Iran alliance targeted at its human rights abuses and its regional aggression, how is the Foreign Office going to tap into this source of growing antagonism towards what Iran is doing in order to achieve Nazanin’s release?

James Cleverly: I think there is widespread support for the UK’s attempts to bring our dual nationals home. I cannot speak on behalf of other Governments, but I hope that Iran will have seen that there is international support for us. Ultimately, as I have said in response to previous questions, there is an opportunity now for Iran to reset its international reputation by doing the right thing and permanently releasing the British dual nationals in detention.

Kim Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this important urgent question. The postponement of the new trial of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe on Monday will have had a major impact on her mental health. She has been unlawfully held in Iran for four years, separated from her husband and daughter. As has already been discussed and commented on, her imprisonment is linked to the £400 million debt that the UK owes Iran. The case of Nazanin is a national tragedy. Can the Minister tell the House how many other British citizens are imprisoned in Iran and what the Government are doing to secure their release—and when?

James Cleverly: I have already explained that the International Military Services debt is a separate issue and one we are working on. Ultimately, our efforts are to secure the release of all British dual nationals in incarceration, and that will continue to be a priority of this Government.

Antony Higginbotham: Iran has long walked the knife-edge of what is and is not acceptable under the joint comprehensive plan of action, exposing the agreement’s significant flaws in the process; it is  clear that it is not deterring Iran’s actions, either in the region or with respect to dual nationals. I recognise the Government’s reluctance to walk away from the agreement without something else being in place, but we cannot reward bad behaviour or this hostage diplomacy. I therefore urge the Minister to give full consideration to what might be the point at which we have to walk away, and to reconsider the arms embargo.

James Cleverly: As the Foreign Secretary made clear, the JCPOA is not perfect. However, while it continues to offer some benefits in constraining and verifying Iran’s nuclear programme, and in the absence of something better, we will continue to support it. It would be inappropriate for me to speculate on what future actions the Government might take in relation to Iran.

Tan Dhesi: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). However, we need to note that a key reason why we are in such a mess with the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case is that the former Foreign Secretary, who in spite of his incompetence was promoted by the Conservative party to the post of Prime Minister, was, as usual, not paying attention to detail. Instead, he decided to make a public statement that Nazanin was “simply teaching people journalism”. Similarly, the Scottish Sikh, Jagtar Singh Johal, has been imprisoned in India for the past three years. Despite his family’s lawyer alleging that he has faced torture and despite repeated requests, since taking office the Foreign Secretary has not even had the decency, has not bothered, to meet the despairing family. Instead of constantly delegating to others, such as the Minister here, when will the Foreign Secretary finally get a grip, do his job properly and help those Brits languishing abroad?

James Cleverly: The actions of Iran this week show that the reason British dual nationals are being detained arbitrarily is that the Iranian regime choose to do so. To hand them opportunities to make excuses and to externalise their actions is deeply inappropriate. I urge the hon. Gentleman to reflect carefully. He is a deeply honourable person—I know him personally—but I think it is an error to hand them an opportunity to externalise the decisions that they have taken.

Elliot Colburn: I too extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), and to the Carshalton and Wallington residents who have contacted me about Nazanin. The Minister mentioned bringing Iran back into the international fold. May I seek his assurance that that is very much dependent on Iran’s compliance with international law, respect for human rights, and, ultimately, the release of British dual nationals such as Nazanin?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is exactly behaviour of that kind that would see a road map for Iran being brought back into the international fold. In this instance, we ultimately wish to see something very simple: the permanent release of all British dual national detainees. That would be a positive step—perhaps the first—in the right direction for Iran.

Dave Doogan: I too commend the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). I wish to reassure her that civil society across these islands is engaged with and vexed about the situation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Many Angus constituents stand in solidarity with the hon. Member and her constituent, and with her desire to see her returned home.
While serving as Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister made a difficult situation much worse with, let us call them, those unhelpful remarks about Nazanin. Now that he is Prime Minister, instead of a concerted effort marshalling the entire resources of the state to liberate her and seeking to right his wrong, we have witnessed a total collapse of UK international relations and regular statecraft. When will the Minister jumpstart the Department into life and ensure that UK nationals, starting with Nazanin, can return home to their families, as many other states have achieved for their citizens detained in Iran? The problem is that the Minister has said repeatedly this afternoon that they will continue working, but it seems to many of us that what they are doing is not working.

James Cleverly: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Scott Benton: As well as destabilising the region and having a long history of financing global terror, we must not overlook the Iranian regime’s human rights abuses and their detention of British citizens. Indeed, there was no mention in the 2015 nuclear deal of either financing global terror or human rights abuses. The Prime Minister has been quite right to call out the shortcomings of that deal. Does my right hon. Friend feel it is finally time to look again and call for a new comprehensive agreement with Iran?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend asks a very good question. As long as the JCPOA can offer some benefit to constraining Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear programme and, as I said, in the absence of something better, we will continue to support it. We do raise human rights, for example, at the various highest levels, and we do take action alongside our friends in the international community. We have been clear that we need to find a long-term solution to address the actions across the region that Iran is taking.

Janet Daby: I am grateful for the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and for it being granted. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister are fully aware of my constituent Mr Anoosheh Ashoori, who is currently being held in prison in Iran. Do the UK Government class Mr Ashoori as having been targeted because of his dual nationality, and can the Minister explain precisely what steps have been taken to secure his release in the light of the impact of the pandemic on prisoner safety?

James Cleverly: The hon. Lady raises an important point about the health of the British dual nationals held in incarceration. It is an issue that we take very seriously and have raised directly with the Iranian regime. I return to the point that we continue to work at every level, both from London and with our post in Tehran, to secure the permanent release of all the British dual nationals in detention.

Personal Statement

Rosena Allin-Khan: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make an apology to the House.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards have found that I have breached paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Members’ code of conduct in the inappropriate use of House stationery and that I committed a breach of the code in using contact details for non-parliamentary purposes. I will accept that this is the third time that I have been found to have breached the rules, despite having previously reassured the Commissioner that I now understood the rules in relation to stationery. Of course, I fully accept their ruling, and I volunteered to pay back the cost of the stationery and have already done so. I apologise to the House and to you for my breach of the rules. The Committee further requested that I meet the Chair and other members to agree steps on how to ensure no lapse from the highest possible standards required and that this should be periodically reviewed. I really look forward to working with the Chair and other members to this end. Finally, I thank the members of the Standards Committee and the Commissioner for Standards for all their work. [Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for her personal statement. Senior Members of this House ought to know better than to make more noise than is necessary at a time when someone is making a personal statement, which they have the right to do in silence. Just because we are socially distancing and people cannot whisper, they will have to learn to make what would have been whispered comments rather more quietly.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Food Labelling (Environmental Sustainability)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Chris Grayling: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require food manufacturers to label products to indicate the environmental sustainability of their origins; and for connected purposes.
We face a biodiversity crisis both here in the United Kingdom and across the world. Around the world, the World Wide Fund for Nature’s most recent “Living Planet” report shows a massive decline in wildlife populations—down by about 68% since 1970. Here in our country, many much-loved species, such as the hedgehog, are facing a catastrophic decline in their numbers. There are numerous reasons for this huge loss of plant and animal species. They range from the continuous erosion of habitats to ill-judged practices in food growing and manufacturing. None of this is news, but as we enter 2021—a year when the future of our environment will be top of the global agenda both in China, at the special conference looking at biodiversity issues, and later in the year here, with the COP 26 summit—surely the time has come for global action to halt this catastrophic decline.
We cannot change the world by ourselves, but we can set an example to everyone in seeking to do so, and when it comes to biodiversity, we must start now and act urgently. I very much welcome the steps being taken by the Government in the Environment and Agriculture Bills to enshrine in law greater protections for our own environment here. Measures such as incentivising farmers to increase the perimeters of fields to create more habitats for animals and wild flowers are really good examples of what can be done to make a difference. However, the most powerful influences of all are not to be found in government or in this place; it is among consumers both here and around the world that a difference can be made. Someone once said:
“You can’t buck the market,”
and she was right. If the markets both here and internationally say, “Enough is enough,” then the world will have to change. That is the point of this proposed Bill.
If anyone wants to understand the need for the Bill, just take a look at an island like Borneo. It is home to the critically endangered orangutan, one of our nearest relatives in the primate world. Where once those magnificent creatures roamed wide areas of rainforest, now huge sweeps of what was once their habitat are covered by plantations growing palm oil for international food markets such as ours. The orangutans are confined to less and less space, and their numbers continue to dwindle. We cannot instruct the Government of Borneo to stop allowing the development of palm oil plantations, but we can stop buying that palm oil ourselves and encourage others to do the same.
The same is true closer to home. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) has just launched an all-party group rightly to try to strengthen protections for chalk streams in this country. They are a really important part of our natural ecosystems and  home to many native species. Too often over the years, ill-thought-out farming practices have allowed that biodiversity to be threatened and damaged. As consumers, we should not have to accept locally produced food without the confidence that it has been grown or reared with a firm eye on protecting local biodiversity.
At the moment, we do not know whether the food we eat comes from smart agriculture that protects and sustains nature, or from unsustainable sources. Of course, some producers market their products as coming from sustainable sources and they stress this quality as a result, but, as is often the case with a product such as palm oil, it is a question of scouring the small print on the back of a package to find the truth. The Bill seeks to empower consumers so they are much better able to say no when the issue is one of environmental damage.
I want us to move rapidly to a world where we can see very clearly, when we pick up a product in a supermarket or in a local shop, whether it comes from a source that is sustainable and that it has not caused environmental damage in its development. To give one example, it is perfectly possible to buy sustainable beef from South America when it comes from the plains of Argentina, yet at the same time to say no to beef from South America if comes from grassland secured by cutting down the Amazon rainforest. By saying no and not buying those products, we take away a market and we remove the financial incentive to cut down more trees. However, we need to be able to take such a decision quickly and easily when we go out shopping.
The Bill does not seek to provide all the answers in one piece of legislation; I do not think it could. A plan to introduce a proper kitemark system or similar to highlight whether a product was developed sustainably needs to be developed carefully and with extensive consultation with all interested parties. I do not want to hamstring producers in this country or elsewhere from growing or manufacturing the products that all our societies need to eat, so we will also need their involvement in developing the right approach. I do not want to place an unduly high burden of regulation on businesses, particularly at what is such a challenging time economically, but this is something that must happen.
The Bill would place on the Government a duty to bring forward within a year a plan to introduce clear labelling on food products, showing whether they come  from environmentally sustainable sources. I see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), on the Front Bench—I thank her for turning up—and I would have great confidence in her taking this concept forward with commitment and determination. The Bill would require Ministers and people such as her to work with all the interested parties to find and introduce a system that empowers consumers to protect our natural environment.
When I buy a product with palm oil in it, I want to know that it comes from one of the many sustainable sources of that product and not another newly cut-down area of rainforest. I want to know that it is not taking away more habitat from the orangutans that so desperately need more habitat and not less. When I buy a British product, I want to know that it has been produced without damaging impacts on native species or on ecosystems such as our chalk streams.
The crucial point is that the consumers—the people who buy products around the world—can achieve so much more than the politicians and the regulators because their decisions determine whether there is a market for products that come from unsustainable sources. When a product does come from an unsustainable source, I want every consumer to say, “No, I won’t accept that—I do not want it.” It is that power of those consumers that can change us all, and we need them to know how. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. It sends a very clear signal every time someone buys a food product so that they know whether it damages the environment or whether it actually comes from a source where the producer has been smart enough to make sure that the natural ecosystems can continue to thrive alongside the manufacture of that product.
We have already seen from this dreadful pandemic what the price is of misusing nature. As a race and as a nation, we need to start changing, and we need to start changing right now. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Chris Grayling, Theo Clarke, Barry Gardiner, Andrew Rosindell, Andrew Selous, Chris Bryant, Tracey Crouch and Cherilyn Mackrory present the Bill.
Chris Grayling accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March, and to be printed (Bill 205).

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1 - Judicial oversight of investigations

(1) This section applies to any investigation by a police force into alleged conduct as described in subsection 3 of section 1.
(2) The police force investigating the conduct must place their preliminary findings before an allocated judge advocate as soon as possible, but no later than 6 months after the alleged offence was brought to their attention.
(3) The judge advocate shall have the power to determine—
(a) that no serious, permanent or lasting psychological or physical injury has been caused; and order that the investigation should cease;
(b) that the evidence is of a tenuous character because of weakness or vagueness or because of inconsistencies with other evidence, and that it is not in the interests of justice to continue an investigation; and order that the investigation should cease; or
(c) that there is merit in the complaint; and make directions as to the timetable and extent of further investigation.”—(Mr Kevan Jones.)
This new clause would set a timetable for police investigations into alleged conduct during overseas operations, to ensure they are as short as possible and provide an opportunity for a judge to stop an unmeritorious or vexatious investigation early.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Kevan Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Limitation of time for minor offences—
“No proceedings shall be brought against any person in relation to a relevant offence, where—
(a) the condition set out in subsection 3 of section 1 is satisfied,
(b) the offence is subject to summary conviction only, or is one in the commission of which no serious, permanent or lasting psychological or physical injury has been caused, and
(c) a period of six months has passed from the time the offence was committed or discovered.”
This new clause would dispose of minor allegations of misconduct by imposing a time limit similar to that which exists in relation to summary only matters in Magistrates’ Courts.
New clause 3—Access to justice for service personnel—
“Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation comparing—
(a) access to justice for members and former members of the regular and reserve forces and of British overseas territory forces to whom section 369(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (persons subject to service law) applies, in relation to legal proceedings in connection with operations of the armed forces outside the British Islands, with
(b) access to justice for asylum seekers and prisoners seeking to bring an action against the Crown.”
New clause 4—Ability to conduct a fair trial—
“The principle referred to in section 1(1) is that a relevant prosecutor making a decision to which that section applies may determine that proceedings should be brought against the person for the offence, or, as the case may be, that the proceedings against the person for the offence should be continued, only if the prosecutor has reasonable grounds for believing that the fair trial of the person has not been materially prejudiced by the time elapsed since the alleged conduct took place.”
This new clause is intended to replace Clause 2 of the Bill. It replaces the presumption against prosecution with a requirement on a prosecutor deciding whether to bring or continue a prosecution to consider whether the passage of time has materially prejudiced the prospective defendant’s chance of a fair trial.
New clause 5—Restrictions on time limits: actions brought against the Crown by service personnel—
“Nothing in this Part applies to any action brought against the Crown by a person who is a member or former member of the regular or reserve forces, or of a British overseas territory force to whom section 369(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (persons subject to service law) applies.”
This new clause amends Part 2 of the Bill so that it explicitly excludes actions brought against the Crown by serving or former service personnel from the limitations on courts’ discretion that the Part imposes in respect of actions relating to overseas operations.
New clause 6—Duty of care to service personnel—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as defined in subsection (6) of section 1.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of this standard before Parliament within six months of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent.
(3) The Secretary of State shall thereafter in each calendar year—
(a) prepare a duty of care report; and
(b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(4) The duty of care report is a report about the continuous process of review and improvement to meet the duty of care standard established in subsection (1), in particular in relation to incidents arising from overseas operations of—
(a) litigation and investigations brought against service personnel for allegations of criminal misconduct and wrongdoing;
(b) civil litigation brought by service personnel against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;
(c) judicial reviews and inquiries into allegations of misconduct by service personnel;
(d) in such other fields as the Secretary of State may determine.
(5) In preparing a duty of care report the Secretary of State must have regard to, and publish relevant data in relation to (in respect of overseas operations)—
(a) the adequacy of legal, welfare and mental health support services provided to service personnel who are accused of crimes;
(b) complaints made by service personnel and, or their legal representation when in the process of bringing or attempting to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;
(c) complaints made by service personnel and, or their legal representation when in the process of investigation or litigation for an accusation of misconduct;
(d) meeting national care standards and safeguarding to families of service personnel, where relevant.
(6) In section (1) “service personnel” means—
(a) members of the regular forces and the reserve forces;
(b) members of British Overseas Territory forces who are subject to service law;
(c) former members of any of Her Majesty‘s forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and
(d) where relevant, family members of any person meeting the definition within (a), (b) or (c).
(7) In subsection (1) “Duty of Care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the well-being of service personnel.
(8) None of the provisions contained within this clause shall be used to alter the principle of Combat Immunity.”
This new clause will require the Ministry of Defence to identify a new duty of care to create a new standard for policy, services and training in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigations arising from overseas operations, and to report annually on their application of this standard.
New clause 7—Duty of care to service personnel—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person has been acquitted of an offence relating to conduct on overseas operations; or
(b) a determination has been made that an investigation into an offence relating to such conduct should cease under section (Judicial oversight of investigations).
(2) No further investigation into the alleged conduct shall be commenced unless—
(a) compelling new evidence has become available; and
(b) an allocated judge advocate determines that the totality of the evidence against the accused is sufficiently strong.”
This new clause would require a judge advocate of the armed services to determine if new evidence is sufficient to grant reinvestigation of armed forces personnel for alleged offences in which they have been acquitted or the original investigation was ceased.
Amendment 11, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.
Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out “5” and insert “10”.
This amendment is one of two providing that the presumption against prosecution should apply after 10 years (instead of 5 years).
Amendment 19, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “5” and insert “10”.
This amendment is one of two providing that the presumption against prosecution should apply after 10 years (instead of 5 years).
Amendment 64, page 2, line 12, leave out clause 2.
This amendment, which would remove Clause 2 from the Bill, should be read together with NC4, which replaces the presumption against prosecution with a requirement on a prosecutor to consider whether the passage of time has materially prejudiced the prospective defendant’s chance of a fair trial.
Amendment 13, page 2, line 18, leave out clause 3.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.
Amendment 24, in clause 3, page 2, line 20, leave out
“(so far as they tend to reduce the person’s culpability or otherwise tend against prosecution)”.
This amendment would ensure that, in giving particular weight to the matters in subsection (2), a prosecutor may consider whether any matter tends to reduce or increase culpability, tending against or in favour of prosecution respectively.
Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 23 to 29.
This amendment is one of two that together would delete the requirement for a prosecutor to give “particular weight” in a prosecution decision after 5 years to the adverse effect on a person of the conditions the person was exposed to during deployment.
Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(ba) the thoroughness, promptness and efficacy of any ongoing investigation into the alleged conduct or any relevant previous investigation, and the reasons for any delays in such investigations;”.
This amendment would ensure that the adequacy of any investigative process to date is given particular weight by a relevant prosecutor.
Amendment 26, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(bb) the public interest in maintaining public trust in the criminal justice system and upholding the principle of accountability of the Armed Forces;”.
This amendment would ensure that a relevant prosecutor gives particular weight to maintaining public trust in the criminal justice system and upholding the principle of accountability of the Armed Forces.
Amendment 27, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(bc) the nature of the alleged conduct, in particular whether it engaged the obligations of the United Kingdom under Articles 2, 3, 4 or 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights;”.
This amendment would ensure that particular weight is given by a prosecutor where the alleged conduct engages the UK’s obligations under Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) or Article 5 (prohibition of arbitrary detention) ECHR.
Amendment 28, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(bd) whether the person had command responsibility for the alleged conduct, and to what extent;”.
This amendment would ensure that particular weight is given by a relevant prosecutor where the person had command responsibility for the alleged conduct.
Amendment 38, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, after subsection (2)(b), insert—
“(c) the quality and duration of relevant investigations.”
This amendment would require prosecutors to give weight to the quality and duration of relevant investigations when deciding whether to bring or continue proceedings against a person relating to alleged conduct during overseas operations.
Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 34 to 43.
This amendment is one of two that together would delete the requirement for a prosecutor to give “particular weight” in a prosecution decision after 5 years to the adverse effect on a person of the conditions the person was exposed to during deployment.
Amendment 14, page 3, line 1, leave out clause 4.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.
Amendment 15, page 3, line 15, leave out clause 5.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.
Amendment 31, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(c) where the offence is punishable with a criminal penalty by the law of Scotland, except with the consent of the Lord Advocate.”
Amendment 39, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(3A) Where the consent of the Attorney General is sought under subsection (2) or (3) above, the Attorney General must prepare a report containing his reasons for granting or withholding consent, as the case may be, with reference to sections 1 to 3 of this Act, and must lay a copy of this report before Parliament.”
This amendment requires the Attorney General to lay out their evidence and assessment as to why they granted or refused consent to prosecute.
Amendment 16, page 3, line 40, leave out clause 6.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.
Amendment 20, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, at end insert—
“(2A) An offence is not a “relevant offence” if it amounts to—
(a) torture, within the meaning of section 134 Criminal Justice Act 1988; or
(b) genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime as defined in section 50 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.”
This amendment provides that the presumption against prosecution does not apply to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or torture.
Amendment 32, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) A service offence is not a “relevant offence” if it is an offence whose prosecution is required under the United Kingdom’s international treaty obligations.”
This amendment would exclude the prosecution of serious international crimes (such as torture, genocide, crimes against humanity, and certain war crimes) from the limitations otherwise imposed by the Bill.
Amendment 17, page 4, line 27, leave out clause 7.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.
Amendment 33, page 6, line 4, leave out clause 8.
Amendment 34, page 6, line 15, leave out clause 9.
Amendment 35, page 6, line 26, leave out clause 10.
Amendment 23, page 6, line 38, leave out clause 11.
This clause would introduce a hard deadline for human rights claims and also includes detailed provision around the impact of proceedings on the mental health of Armed Forces witnesses. This amendment deletes this clause from the bill.
Amendment 60, in clause 11, page 7, line 23, at end insert—
“(c) the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”
This amendment adds a further consideration to which UK courts must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard HRA limitation period of one year so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their claim proceed is not subordinated.
Amendment 46, in clause 11, page 7, line 30, leave out from “before” to the end of line 34 and insert
“the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the date of knowledge.”
This amendment is one of a series that change the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing claims under the HRA arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 41, in clause 11, page 7, line 34, at end insert—
“(4A) The court may disapply the rule in subsection (1) (b) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—
(a) the nature of the injuries;
(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or
(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”
This amendment introduces a discretion for UK courts to allow a Human Rights Act claim arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.
Amendment 29, in clause 11, page 7, line 36, leave out
“first ought to have known”.
Amendment 47, in clause 11, page 7, line 40, at end insert—
“(c) of the manifestation of the harm resulting from that act which is the subject of the claim; and
(d) that they were eligible to bring a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 against the Ministry of Defence or Secretary of State for Defence in the courts of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment is one of a series that change the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing claims under the HRA arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 40, page 8, line 14, leave out clause 12.
Clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to consider making a derogation under Article 15(1) ECHR in respect of any significant overseas operations. This amendment would remove this requirement.
Amendment 37, in clause 12, page 8, line 20, at end, insert—
“(1A) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under section 14 following consideration under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require significant derogations regarding overseas operations proposed by the Government from the European Convention on Human Rights to be approved by Parliament before being made.
Amendment 66, page 11, line 1, leave out schedule 1.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 16.
Amendment 1, in schedule 1, page 12, line 6, at end insert—
“(13A) An offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (torture).”
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 2, in schedule 1, page 12, line 40, leave out “or” and insert—
“(b) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(f),
(c) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(i)
(d) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(k), or”.
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 12, line 42, leave out “or” and insert—
“(ii) article 8.2(a)(ii) (which relates to international conflict),
(iii) article 8.2(b)(xxi) (which relates to international conflict), or”.
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 4, in schedule 1, page 13, line 2, at end insert “, or
(iv) article 8.2(c)(i) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character) insofar as it relates to the offences of cruel treatment and torture,
(v) article 8.2(c)(ii) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character).”
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 13, line 14, leave out “or” and insert—
“(b) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(f),
(c) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(i),
(d) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(k), or”.
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 6, in schedule 1, page 13, line 16, leave out “or” and insert—
“(ii) article 8.2(a)(ii) ((which relates to international conflict),
(iii) article 8.2(b)(xxi) (which relates to international conflict), or”.
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 13, line 18, at end insert—
“(iii) article 8.2(c)(i) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character) insofar as it relates to the offences of cruel treatment and torture,
(iv) article 8.2(c)(ii) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character).”
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 14, line 8, leave out “or” and insert—
“(b) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(f),
(c) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(i),
(d) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(k), or”.
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 14, line 10, leave out “or” and insert—
“(iii) article 8.2(a)(ii) ((which relates to international conflict),
(iv) article 8.2(b)(xxi) (which relates to international conflict), or”.
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 14, line 12, at end insert—
“(iii) article 8.2(c)(i) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character) insofar as it relates to the offences of cruel treatment and torture, or
(iv) article 8.2(c)(ii) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character).”
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 67, page 15, line 33, leave out schedule 2.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 33.
Amendment 48, in schedule 2, page 16, line 5, leave out
“the section 11 relevant date”
and insert “the date of knowledge”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in England and Wales so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 30, in schedule 2, page 16, line 5, at end insert
“save for exceptional cases where the overriding interest of justice should be served.”
Amendment 42, in schedule 2, page 16, line 5, at end insert—
“(1ZAi) The court may disapply the rule in subsection (1ZA) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—
(a) the nature of the injuries;
(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or
(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”
This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of England and Wales to allow a civil claim for personal injury arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.
Amendment 49, in schedule 2, page 16, line 30, leave out
“the section 11 relevant date (ignoring, for this purpose, the reference to section 11 (5) in paragraph (a) of the definition of that term)”
and insert “the date of knowledge.”
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in England and Wales so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 50, in schedule 2, page 16, line 35, leave out
“the section 12 relevant date”
and insert “the date of knowledge”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in England and Wales so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 43, schedule 2, page 16, line 36, at end insert—
“(2Bi) The court may disapply the rules in subsections (2A) and (2B) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—
(a) the nature of the injuries;
(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or
(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”
This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of England and Wales to allow a civil claim for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.
Amendment 61, in schedule 2, page 17, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) the court must also have particular regard to the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”
This amendment adds a further consideration to which the courts of England and Wales must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard limitation period of three years so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their civil claim proceed is not illegitimately subordinated.
Amendment 51, in schedule 2, page 17, leave out from beginning of line 35 to end of line 5 on page 18, and insert—
“‘the date of knowledge’ means the date on which the person bringing the proceedings first knew, or first ought to have known—
(a) of the act complained of;
(b) that it was an act of the Ministry of Defence or the Secretary of State for Defence;
(c) of the manifestation of the injury resulting from that act which is the subject of the claim, and
(d) that they were eligible to bring a claim against the Ministry of Defence or Secretary of State for Defence in the courts of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in England and Wales so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury and wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 68, page 20, line 1, leave out schedule 3.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34.
Amendment 62, in schedule 3, page 20, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”
This amendment adds a further consideration to which the courts of Scotland must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard limitation period of three years so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their civil claim proceed is not subordinated.
Amendment 52, in schedule 3, page 20, line 41, leave out
“the section 17 relevant date”
and insert
“the date of knowledge (see subsection (13))”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Scotland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 53, in schedule 3, page 21, line 4, leave out
“the section 18 relevant date”
and insert
“the date of knowledge (see subsection (13))”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Scotland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 54, in schedule 3, page 21, line 9, leave out
“the section 17 relevant date”
and insert
“the date of knowledge (see subsection (13))”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Scotland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 44, in schedule 3, page 21, line 9, at end insert—
“(7A) The court may disapply the rules in subsections (5) to (7) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—
(a) the nature of the injuries;
(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or
(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”
This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of Scotland to allow a civil claim for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.
Amendment 55, in schedule 3, page 22, leave out lines 12 to 17 and insert—
“‘the date of knowledge’ means the date on which the person bringing the proceedings first knew, or first ought to have known—
(a) of the act complained of;
(b) that it was an act of the Ministry of Defence or the Secretary of State for Defence;
(c) of the manifestation of the injury resulting from that act which is the subject of the claim, and
(d) that they were eligible to bring a claim against the Ministry of Defence or Secretary of State for Defence in the courts of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Scotland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury and wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 69, page 23, line 38, leave out schedule 4.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 35.
Amendment 56, in schedule 4, page 24, line 5, leave out
“the Article 7 relevant date”
and insert “the date of knowledge”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Northern Ireland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 45, in schedule 4, page 24, line 5, at end insert—
“(1Ai) The court may disapply the rule in paragraph (1A) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—
(a) the nature of the injuries;
(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or
(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”
This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of Northern Ireland to allow a civil claim for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.
Amendment 57, in schedule 4, page 24, line 29, leave out
“the Article 7 relevant date (ignoring, for this purpose, the reference to Article 7(5) in paragraph (a) of the definition of that term)”
and insert “the date of knowledge”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Northern Ireland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury out of overseas operations.
Amendment 58, in schedule 4, page 24, line 34, leave out
“the Article 9 relevant date”
and insert “the date of knowledge”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Northern Ireland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 63, in schedule 4, page 25, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) the court must also have particular regard to the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”
This amendment adds a further consideration to which the courts of Northern Ireland must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard limitation period of three years so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their civil claim proceed is not subordinated.
Amendment 59, in schedule 4, page 25, leave out lines 25 to 43 and insert—
“‘the date of knowledge’ means the date on which the person bringing the proceedings first knew, or first ought to have known—
(a) of the act complained of;
(b) that it was an act of the Ministry of Defence or the Secretary of State for Defence;
(c) of the manifestation of the injury resulting from that act which is the subject of the claim, and
(d) that they were eligible to bring a claim against the Ministry of Defence or Secretary of State for Defence in the courts of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Northern Ireland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury and wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.

Kevan Jones: For the sake of time, I will not speak to every single amendment.

Dan Jarvis: Go on!

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend says, “Please do,” but I am sure that other Members want to contribute to this debate.
Since speaking on Second Reading and in Committee, it has been my aim, and that of the Labour Front-Bench team, to try to improve the Bill. In my nearly 19 years in this House, I have been someone who is proud of our armed forces, considers myself a friend to them and wants to help them in any way I can. I stand up for them, and I speak passionately, I think, in defending not just them but the case for defence.
It has therefore been disappointing that the Government have not really engaged to amend the Bill. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said to the Defence Secretary that he wished to work with the Government to try to improve the Bill today, and he got a single-word reply: “No.” We then had the reply from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans in response to a question on the Bill when he said that he would be
“happy to work with anybody to improve this Bill, but we must operate in the real world.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 13.]
The only problem with that is that it is the real world according to the Minister, and that world obviously has a different colour sky from the one that we all live in. The idea that, somehow, as long as he is saying it, it has to be true, even when his evidence is counter to that put  forward by various witnesses in Committee, is telling. What was sad in Committee was that all the Minister did was read out his civil service brief to us in response to the various amendments. He was reluctant to accept any interventions, even from rottweilers such as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). When it comes to the Government Members on the Committee, I must congratulate the Whips Office on selecting so well, because those Members must have taken a collective vow of silence, which would have been admired by any silent ecclesiastical order. We had no contribution whatever from them, so it has been very difficult trying to engage with the Government on this Bill. The line is, clearly, that this is the answer, irrespective of what has been raised in Committee. We had some very good witnesses before us in Committee, but the Government are just not interested in changing the Bill, because the world and this Bill are perfect, according to the Minister and the Government.

Stephen Doughty: I concur with much of what my right hon. Friend is saying. He has always been a champion of the armed forces, both in his time in Government and, indeed, during the course of this Bill. Does he share my surprise that even the Government witnesses were saying things that disagreed with the Government’s account of this Bill? Professor Richard Ekins said that the Bill certainly does not stop investigations. He said:
“In fact, if one were to make a criticism of the Bill, one might say that it places no obstacle on continuing investigations”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 35, Q63.]
Does he not find it surprising that even Government witnesses did not agree with the Government?

Kevan Jones: Indeed. Time and again, supposed Government witnesses went against the Government. My hon. Friend raises a good point with the example that he has just provided.
The other thing that came out, which relates to my new clause, was about investigations. Investigations, or the problems that lead to these issues around investigations, were the thread that ran throughout the evidence. In spite of that, what we had at the weekend—this was a really dangerous move on the part of the Ministry of Defence—was tweets promoting this Bill from the MOD and saying that it would stop investigations. It will do nothing of the sort. As a former Defence Minister myself, using the MOD’s website and tweets to politicise things would not have been allowed in my day. What was put out is just not going to happen. Let us look at the evidence that we heard in Committee from a number of witnesses. The first one I will mention, again a Government witness, is Hilary Meredith, solicitor. She was very good and concentrated on the issue around investigations. She said:
“It is the procedure and investigation in the UK that need to be reviewed and overhauled, and not necessarily a time limit placed on…prosecutions.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 16, Q24.]

Ian Paisley Jnr: The right hon. Gentleman has a long track record of supporting the armed services here. Is he concerned by the expression of doubt that has been put by members of the Royal  British Legion? They have put in writing to all Members of Parliament the fact that they believe that part 2 of this Bill should be improved and that the time limit really gravely concerns them.

Kevan Jones: I am, and I will come onto part 2 in a minute. The hon. Gentleman has hit on an issue relating to the Government’s approach to this Bill. The Minister is saying that it is standing up for members of the armed forces. It is doing nothing of the sort. In part 2, it is actually taking away rights.

Johnny Mercer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevan Jones: I will let the Minister intervene, even though he is very reluctant to give way to me. I asked him if I could intervene on numerous occasions in Committee, but he would not tear himself away from the civil service briefing in front of him.

Johnny Mercer: I just wish to intervene briefly. It is a litany of accusations and they are complete rubbish. Where have I ever said that I wanted to stop investigations in this Bill? That is what I would like the right hon. Gentleman to indicate to me.

Eleanor Laing: Order. That is a perfectly reasonable question, but, although it is not exactly unparliamentary language, perhaps the Minister, speaking as he does with dignity from the Front Bench, might use a different phrase than “complete rubbish”—just something a little bit different.

Kevan Jones: It is better than he did in Committee when he called me a hypocrite, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if he listens to what I am saying, he will know that I am not saying that. I know that his attention span is not very good, and he does not tend to listen. What he tends to do is just stick to what he has in front of him and his view of the world, rather than hearing what people are saying. The issue is—[Interruption.] Well, he can say “brilliant” and chunter as much as he likes, but this is the issue—the delays that are taking place because of the investigations.
I have referred to Judge Blackett, and the Minister was there when the evidence was taken. Judge Blackett is a just-retired senior judge of the service justice system, and he said:
“The Bill is effectively looking at the wrong end of the telescope. It is looking at the prosecution end, and you have got to remember that you do not prosecute until you investigate—and you have got to investigate. This will not stop people being investigated and it will not stop people being re-investigated and investigated again. Lots of investigations do not go anywhere, but the people who are investigated do not see that.”—[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 120.]
That came up when we took evidence from Major Campbell. I will put it on record again that his case was a disgrace, because it took 17 years, but this Bill will do nothing to speed up such cases or to ensure that reinvestigations do not occur. That is the key problem. The problem is not the prosecutions, because their number is very small.

Julian Lewis: I have put in three written questions about this Bill, and yesterday I had answers to them. Two of the answers were helpful,  but one, on the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, was not. I was trying to establish how many investigations had not resulted in prosecutions, and I could not seem to get an answer, yet that is central to the whole problem. The core of the problem is not the small number who get prosecuted but the large number who get investigated.

Kevan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. That came out in evidence that we took throughout the Committee. The issue is not the number of prosecutions but the number of investigations and how we can speed up the length of time they take.
The problem is that the Ministry seems to have a deaf ear when it comes to recognising that we need to address the issue around investigations, which is what new clause 1 would do. It would ensure that we had judicial oversight of the investigations. We can see what we have at the moment from the example of Major Campbell’s case, which went on and on. New clause 1 states that after a certain period of time, the evidence should be put before a judge to see whether there was a case to answer. Clearly, if the evidence did not meet the test and the case was going nowhere, it would get thrown out there and then. Alternatively, it could be decided that the case needed further investigation, but at least that would ensure that, after six months, there was some judicial oversight of the investigation. That would be a way of ensuring that these investigations did not go on for a long time.

Tan Dhesi: My right hon. Friend has always been a strong supporter of the armed forces. Does he agree that, while drafting the Bill, the Government, who claim to be champions of our armed forces, continued to ignore the impartial advice of the Royal British Legion, which has stated again and again that it breaches the armed forces  covenant?

Kevan Jones: But it really does not matter, because if my hon. Friend wants to see the attitude of the Minister to the Royal British Legion, he has only to read the evidence that came before the Committee.
New clause 2 would provide a way of ensuring that minor offences were dealt with speedily. As Judge Blackett said, this could be done in a magistrates court, where, after a period of time had passed, the cases could be looked at judicially and ticked off and dismissed on the basis that the there was no evidence to go forward. That would deal with a lot of the smaller issues. People ask why that is important, but if we look at the Iraq Historic Allegations Team—IHAT—and Northmoor, some of those cases involved assault and other things that in normal circumstances could be dealt with very quickly in a magistrates court. At least if we had a judge looking at them, he or she could make a decision as to whether or not those cases had any merit. It is amazing that the Government fail to recognise that the problem is not prosecutions but actually the investigatory process.
Then, halfway through the Bill Committee, the MOD announced it was coming forward with a review of investigations, to feed into next year’s Armed Forces Act, when the obvious place to have put that would have been in this Bill. The reason for doing that was  given away by the Minister in the evidence session: this Bill has nothing to do with making sure of these matters. There is no reason why what I am suggesting and other issues around investigations could not be put in the Bill now and improve it, yet for reasons of tidiness the MOD wants to do it next year.
I have some sympathy with the MOD on that, because perhaps the best way to do this is in those five-yearly reviews of the Armed Forces Acts—and I think I have been on the Committee for every single one for the past nearly 20 years as either a Minister or Back Bencher. But the reason this Bill is before us has nothing to do with that; the Minister let the cat out of the bag in Committee when he said he had to get this through now, because one of his general election pledges was to do it within 100 days. I am sorry, but that is not a good way of bringing in legislation—just trying to press it forward irrespective of whether or not it is flawed.

David Davis: I have a lot of sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but may I drag him away from his politics for a second? Would it not be very simple to incorporate the recommendation in a 1960s magistrates Act of a judge advocate general, as that would deal with exactly what he is talking about?

Kevan Jones: It would. That and judicial oversight would improve the Bill tremendously. It would then actually do what it is supposed to do, which is stop reinvestigation and stop the worry that these individuals have, but it does not do that; that is the big hole in the Bill.
It is not as though the Minister has not had a chance to look at this. I have raised it with him—I tabled amendments in Committee, which he pushed aside, and we are going to go ahead with what we have now, which will be a flawed Bill. Once it has passed, it will lead to a situation whereby a lot of people think that as a result they have protections when, frankly, it will do nothing of the sort, because it will not stop investigations and reinvestigations. One of the worst things we can do in politics is promise people things and give them the impression that we have done something when actually we have not, because once the penny drops and they see it is not actually the case, they rightly feel very bitter.
As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has just said, there is time to put this in the Bill. If Ministers are not going to do it in this place, they should do it in the other place, because it will improve the situation.
There is another dishonesty with this process. From, again, using the MOD website, which I do not think is appropriate for political reasons, we see there is a promise about Northern Ireland. The Minister is on record as saying that similar legislation will be brought in to cover historical cases in Northern Ireland. Well, I am sorry, but it will not do so if it is like this Bill; if it is like this Bill then, frankly, it will do nothing at all on investigations. If it is a mirror image of this Bill, all those people who think that somehow they are going to get protection will find that they do not, and that is just not fair.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the officers who served under Operation Banner have been completely jettisoned and abandoned. That is the bottom line, and that is the crying shame of  this—and I do not trust anyone in the Northern Ireland Office to bring forward a Bill that will help those ex-servicemen in the years to come.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes a clear point: do I feel it right that, frankly, people in their 70s or 80s and even younger are worried about this happening? No, I think that is appalling, frankly, because there is an evidence test: is it in the public interest for those individuals to be now dragged before the courts? No, it is not. Here we have another promise that will not be delivered. I must say he is right in terms of the Northern Ireland Office. I have looked at the matter in detail—I have met all parties in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Féin, along with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—and I think that finding a mechanism is going to be virtually impossible.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. The fact is this will end up in Northern Ireland Operation Banner officers being a trade-off between what the NIO finds politically helpful to buy off bartering with the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin.

Kevan Jones: I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of Northern Ireland politics, but I will say that this will not be solved by the promise that has been made. That again is not the issue.
I turn to new clause 3. It relates to the point that was raised on part 2 and is covered by an amendment tabled by Members on the Labour Front Bench. The issue is the stripping away of rights from veterans. I find it absolutely astonishing that, in this week of remembrance, we have a Government who have introduced a Bill that will actually take rights away from veterans. The longstop of six years will mean that veterans—and families—will not have access to section 33 of the Limitation Act, which allows people to bring cases out of time.
In Committee there was a lot of discussion about how many people would be affected. The Royal British Legion was very clear in its opposition to part 2 because, as Charles Byrne said in response to the Minister:
“I think it is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q163.]
He said that the Royal British Legion thought it did breach the armed forces covenant. I agree, because the covenant states:
“Those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether Regular or Reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public…services”
and so on. I agree with that, but this strips away their rights under section 33, which means that if somebody brings forward a case after the six-year longstop, they cannot have recourse to section 33 of the Limitation Act, because the Bill will take those rights away. Those rights are open to every single Member in the House today, and to prisoners and asylum seekers—anybody who wants to bring a case.
The Minister said that 94% of cases were brought within the time limits anyway. That is irrelevant to me, because 6% clearly are not, and it is those 6% that will then possibly use the Limitation Act.
May I put this on record, as I did in Committee? Bringing forward a section 33 case is by no means easy. It pertains to a very small number of individuals who could not bring their case within the time limit because their circumstances were unique; and they have to go before a court and argue out the reasons. I have done it myself when I worked for a trade union on injury or disease cases that were out of time—although you would not take on such a case in the first instance if you thought you would not get anywhere. However, there are those important cases that you can take, and which do make a difference.
The case that was mentioned time and again in Committee was the Snatch Land Rover decision in 2016. The families took forward the case under the Human Rights Act, which I will come on to in a minute, on the basis that their loved ones had been killed and injured in Iraq because of negligence on behalf of the MOD.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Just for clarification, in the silent exchange that the right hon. Gentleman and I have just had, I was trying to indicate to him that it would be helpful to the House if he concluded his remarks quite soon. I know it seems that he has not been speaking for very long, but it has been 22 minutes. I appreciate that he has taken a lot of interventions and this is important. I am requiring not that he finishes now but that he takes into consideration that there are many points of view on this Bill and that there are many people who wish to speak and, although we have a long time, we do not have long enough for everyone to take more than 20 minutes. He has some serious points to make, and I trust he will make them as quickly as possible.

Kevan Jones: On one occasion, I spoke in Committee for an hour and 10 minutes.

Sarah Dines: Could the right hon. Gentleman take a moment to reflect on what he said in his opening remarks, when he said there was near silence from Conservative Members in Committee? I was there, and I did not hear silence, but his contributions probably put us to sleep. With respect, could he think about it again for one moment?
On our side, we had valuable contributions from Members of Parliament who have served this great country of ours, like my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). They know what they are talking about. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to think again about saying they were silent?

Eleanor Laing: Order. Let us get this straight. Interventions will also be brief this afternoon. We want interventions because there is a serious debate to be had. As I look around the Chamber, I see experienced parliamentarians and others who understand that this is a very important Bill, and much of it is very sensitive, so let us try to behave with sensitivity and consideration for others.

Kevan Jones: I made a mistake this morning, because I was going to count the number of interventions. There were no speeches from Conservative Members in Committee, although I think there were six interventions.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I do not care how many interventions there were in Committee. This debate is not about Committee; it is about the important matters before us, and that is what we will stick to.

Kevan Jones: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was being polite in replying to the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines).
The families took the case against the MOD on the basis that they did not know about the Snatch Land Rovers until the Chilcot inquiry reported. That was way past any time limit.

Jack Lopresti: Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that the proposed six-year time limit applies from the point of knowledge or the point of diagnosis, so it is not clear what point he is trying to get across.

Kevan Jones: He who waits it all comes to. I was going to answer that point in a minute.
The MOD argued two things in that case. First, it argued that the case was out of time, and the families won the limitation hearing to take the case forward. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) has just said it would be within the six-year limit. No, it would not. Let us suppose they had taken the case not in 2016 but six years later. They would not be able to take a limitation hearing at all. The Minister does not quite understand that problem.
The case I raised in Committee was of an aircraft engineer who developed a very serious nerve condition from paint. The only reason he was able to take forward his case was because the technology had changed and research had shown that the paint actually damages people’s nervous system.
The Minister said in Committee that, somehow, he is on record in The Sun as guaranteeing that no one will lose out, but he cannot because that will not happen: as I said to him in Committee, using the Robin Day analogy, we are all here-today, gone-tomorrow politicians. Frankly, what will happen is that MOD lawyers will use this to stop people making claims.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Kevan Jones: If I must.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: My right hon. Friend does not have to if he does not want to.
Will the passing of the Bill mean that civilians working for the MOD down the road will end up having, in effect, more rights than Army service personnel who have served in operations overseas? Does that not bring us back to the fundamental issue of the breaking of the armed forces covenant, on which the Government really must think again?

Kevan Jones: It does. The Bill’s provisions will also mean that prisoners will have more right to sue the MOJ, for example, than armed forces personnel. The Minister said in Committee, “That’s terrible because you’re comparing armed service personnel with veterans”; no, I am not. I am saying that if the Bill goes through, prisoners will have more rights than armed forces personnel.  That cannot be right. The Minister mentioned the 6%; I am sorry, but if even one veteran loses their rights under this Bill, I am not prepared to support that.
My next point is about the Human Rights Act. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), because it is about how this looks in terms of our international reputation. There is derogation in the Bill; I accept that there cannot be derogation for torture, but it can and will be used to stop claims by MOD personnel against the MOD itself. The Snatch Land Rover case was brought under the Human Rights Act. Some people have the idea that the Human Rights Act is there to protect nasty foreigners and people we do not like; no, it is not. It is there to protect us all, including armed forces personnel. I am sure that that derogation will be used again by the MOD to deny the rights of individuals to take cases.
People should look at the Smith judgment on that case. What were the Government arguing? They were arguing that combat immunity, which is covered and was reinforced by the Supreme Court judgment, applied in that case because it happened in Iraq. No, that was not the case; the case was actually about the design and the decision to procure those Land Rovers and put them into theatre. The derogation will clearly be used in such a way.
I wish to make one final point, about our standing in the world. I am a supporter of the service justice system—it works well and we should be proud of it—but the problem with the Bill is this: do I want to see British servicemen and women tried in the International Criminal Court? No, I do not. I want them to be tried by their peers in a court in this country. As the Judge Advocate General, Judge Blackett, said in Committee, under this Bill there is a danger that if we have a presumption against prosecution and the issue around torture, we will get a situation whereby individuals will be tried not here but elsewhere. That would be terrible, not just for those individuals but for this country’s international reputation.

Eleanor Laing: I had been hoping to manage this afternoon’s proceedings without a time limit, but I do not think that is going to work; therefore, I am now obliged, in order to try to get a fair and equitable debate, to start with a time limit of eight minutes, but that will be significantly reduced later in the debate. If hon. Members who have eight minutes choose in an honourable way to speak for less than eight minutes, that would be remarkable.

Thomas Tugendhat: The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) set me a target of 30 minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you have reduced it to eight. It is a crying shame.
The Bill’s importance comes down to the penultimate points that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about. The importance of the Bill is all about the Human Rights Act. It is all about the defence not just of British service personnel—which is absolutely right—but of these islands, this nation and our citizens. The point about this Bill is that the law not only interferes inappropriately in the way that the combat forces of our   country conduct themselves, but it actually weakens the defence of our realm. Let me break down what I mean by that and explain clearly why this is a problem.
We are seeing today armies being stopped from deploying in certain areas and individual personnel being asked to stop operations because the law is geared to a civilian environment. We have seen legal action brought against the MOD to protect the rights of an individual on operations who has volunteered and specifically stepped up to serve in a risky environment, knowing the dangers and the consequences. The important difference between the civilian environment and the military one and between, to use the jargon, international humanitarian law and international human rights law—or the Geneva convention and civilian law, if you like—is that the law is geared to the environment. If it is not, we end up doing something most unfortunate that nobody in the House wants to do: we end up giving ammunition to the enemy and power to those who would seek to take power from us.
Let me give one example. Today, British forces are actively involved in operations in Ukraine. They are not actually on the frontline fighting Russian forces—I suppose I should more politely call them mercenaries, acolytes or something like that. British forces are training the Ukrainian armed forces, and in that sense, they are supporting the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission. As part of that job, they are driving around the country. We can imagine a situation where the environment changes and the United Kingdom Government decide to change the order from merely supporting through training to taking an active part in peacekeeping or peace enforcement. If they were to do that, we can imagine the next scenario: legal action bought and paid for by a Russian hand. [Interruption.] If you do not believe it, you had better start listening.
We can absolutely see the possibility that a Russian hand will use the Human Rights Act, which is currently being deployed in various other ways, to stop our forces from deploying by arguing that kit is inappropriate and that operations are therefore too dangerous for soldiers to be deployed. It may be true that the operation is too dangerous or that the risk is not appropriate, but it is the job of this House, of Ministers, of generals and officers to decide. It is not the job of lawyers.

Kevan Jones: I like the hon. Member, but he is talking complete nonsense. If he has read the Smith case, which went before the Supreme Court, he will know that combat immunity is completely covered under the Human Rights Act. It did not change that one iota, so what he suggests just will not happen. That case reiterated the point about combat immunity under the Human Rights Act.

Thomas Tugendhat: I am sorry, but the right hon. Member is completely wrong. If he reads “The Fog of Law” written by—oh—me in 2013, a paper for Policy Exchange written alongside actual lawyers, rather than me, such as Richard Ekins, with a foreword written by Lord Moses of the Supreme Court, he will see exactly what I am talking about. If he reads “Clearing the Fog of Law”, which explains the situation, he will see clearly why this is a problem. This is absolutely an issue.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Thomas Tugendhat: I will carry on.
It is also an issue for the human rights of some of the people we are fighting. Bizarrely, there were situations in Afghanistan where individuals could only be detained for a certain number of hours. They could not, for various reasons, be handed over to the Afghan authorities, despite the fact that we were, in theory, supporting the Afghan Government. It meant that after a certain number of hours—normally about 96 hours—they had to be released. The fact that they were known bomb makers who had definitely been handling explosives because chemical evidence showed it, could not be used, because in order to be used, those people would have had to be handed over to the Afghan authorities, and various people argued that the Afghan authorities were too inappropriate, too corrupt or too violent.
So, what happened? What do you think happens when someone who has taken up arms against you, literally tried to kill you and planted bombs to try to maim you cannot be detained? It is simple: after the legal limit was reached, the prisoners were released and followed for a number of hours, until they did exactly what we would expect: they went back to a weapons cache or arms unit and were engaged again as lawful military targets. How is that a defence of the human rights, even of the individual concerned?

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: The hon. Gentleman, who is a good Member and a friend, is making a really interesting argument, but I fail to understand how it has anything to do with the Bill. How has limiting the ability of service personnel to take civil action against the MOD got anything to do with what he is talking about? How is requiring a five-year statute of limitations on things like torture anything to do with what he is saying about the operation in war? Can he explain how the interesting points he is making are relevant to what is in the Bill? I and, I think, my colleagues fail to see it.

Thomas Tugendhat: I am sorry that the hon. Member is failing to see it, because I thought I explained it quite clearly with the Ukraine example. We also see in other operations how the use of law has undermined the combat effectiveness of the armed forces. We see time and again in operations the opportunity for an individual with nefarious intent to try to bring legal action against the MOD to prevent operations.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the hon. Member give way?

Thomas Tugendhat: I will not give way any more; I had two interventions and they are done. We see again and again how legal intervention could be used to try to prevent operations. That, absurdly, prevents the armed forces from doing exactly what they are there for: to be the strong defending the weak. Instead, soldiers deployed on lawful operations will not be able to act in defence of the most vulnerable. The Bill clearly intends to go some way towards dealing with that. I do have a criticism of the Bill in that it does not go far enough to prevent multiple investigations, but the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) will agree with me on that. It is true that it goes some way, but not nearly far enough.

Dan Jarvis: I declare an interest as a veteran. It is a pleasure to be called in the debate and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). I do not share his analysis on this occasion, but it is a pleasure to follow him none the less.
I begin with what I hope is a point of agreement across the whole House. We all appreciate and understand the strength of feeling and high regard that Members across the House have for those who serve in our armed forces. Sadly, we are all too familiar with stories of our armed forces personnel being hounded for years and years. The Bill seeks to address such abuses but—here is where I part company with the Minister and the Government—in a manner that I believe will see Britain reneging on its international legal commitments. I will focus my remarks on the exception of torture from the Bill.
Torture, aside from being wholly ineffective, is illegal, immoral and inhumane. However, having listened to the Government’s arguments throughout the passage of the Bill, I remain convinced of the need for safeguards on torture. For the most part, Ministers have sought to dismiss the suggestion that the triple lock will weaken our stance on torture, yet an ever-growing number of legal experts, military figures and parliamentarians on both sides of the House think there is a need for a rethink.
It is obvious to see why there is a problem with the Bill. In my view, the Government have taken the correct decision to exclude sexual offences from the Bill. They could not have been more explicit when doing so. In response to the public consultation, the MOD said:
“the use of sexual violence or sexual exploitation during conflict is never acceptable in any circumstances.”
I believe that the same applies to torture. It is never acceptable in any circumstances. When pushed on that matter, Ministers have argued that an allegation of torture could arise as a consequence of the unique and often dangerous tasks that soldiers are instructed to carry out on overseas operations. That is just not correct. The rules on detention and interrogation are clear. The British Army’s training on detainee handling and tactical questioning is rigorous and leaves no room for doubt.
There is no debate on what constitutes torture, nor can an act of torture be conducted in error or as a result of a split-second misjudgment. It is a premeditated action for which there can be no justification. There is a reason why our soldiers are taught where the line is: we lose our legitimacy if we sink to the level of our opponents. By not excluding torture in the Bill, the Government are taking another step backwards on international law and on human rights.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making points with which I absolutely concur. The prohibition on torture is absolute. I have witnessed first hand the training given to our armed forces personnel on the issues that he has described. Does he share my concern, which was expressed in Committee, that not excluding torture in the way that the Government could have done, and have done on sexual offences, puts our armed forces personnel at bigger risk of being taken to places such as the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which nobody wants to happen?

Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend raises an incredibly valuable point. That is a real risk and an unintended consequence of the Bill. I hope that the Minister gives pressing thought to that during the remainder of its passage through the House.
My hon. Friend will have seen the excellent report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which raised significant concerns that the Bill breaches the UK’s international legal obligations under international humanitarian law, human rights law and international criminal law. The Committee recommended that at a minimum, the Government should exclude torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide from the Bill’s presumption against prosecution. That is precisely what the Government should be doing.
When I spoke to the Minister before Second Reading, he said that he was amenable to looking at such changes. I am sure he believes, as I and many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House believe, that torture is incompatible with the values and standards of our armed forces.

Jack Lopresti: There is nothing in the Bill that prohibits any investigation within or after the five years for any such acts. There is nothing that favours them; there is no amnesty, no pardon, and no statute of limitations. By the way, I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s book, which I read a couple of weeks ago, but I have to say that on this occasion, he is mistaken.

Dan Jarvis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the comments towards the end of his remarks. There is a weight of expert opinion. I am reassured about the strength of the case that I and other hon. Members are seeking to make today by the contacts I have had with my former colleagues who are still serving in our armed forces. There is a genuine debate still to be had about this. I am sure that the Minister will want to engage with the substance of the debate. Let us keep talking about it.

Julian Lewis: When the Defence Committee was looking at the matter in the previous two Parliaments, it recommended a Bill of this sort provided that the time limit was qualified by the absence of compelling new evidence. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman saying that he does not feel that that proviso is in the Bill? If that proviso is in the Bill, if there were compelling new evidence that had not come forward in the first five years but came forward afterwards, then indeed a prosecution could proceed.

Dan Jarvis: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I certainly assume that all of us attend this debate and seek to make contributions in good faith, and I think there is a genuine desire from Members from all parts of the House to improve this Bill. The Minister has indicated on a number of occasions that in good faith he wants to have that continuing conversation with Members about how we can improve the Bill. There is still time to do so, and I very much hope that we will not miss out on that opportunity.
To conclude my remarks, no one here today—none of us—is denying that there is a problem with members of our armed forces being hounded for years. We all know of occasions and examples where that has happened,  and lives have undoubtedly been ruined as a consequence, but I believe, and I know that others share my belief, that the Bill as drafted is not the answer to resolving those particular issues. As Judge Blackett said in the evidence he gave to the Public Bill Committee:
“This will not stop people being investigated and it will not stop people being re-investigated and investigated again.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 120, Q246.]
We must address the deficiencies of the investigative process and provide those who are under investigation with our full support, but we cannot use deeply regrettable instances of failure to renege on our legal and moral obligations. Let us show some leadership and lead by example. I very much hope that the Government will think again.

David Davis: It is a privilege to follow the gallant and hon. Gentleman, who is a co-signatory with me to amendments 1 to 10, which deal with the issue of torture. If this country stands for anything, it stands for the rule of law. That enhances our reputation abroad and increases our influence abroad. It is also important to the reputation and effectiveness of our armed forces, who are made safer and more effective because of it. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) spoke at length about the Bill not dealing with investigations, so in the interests of time I will move past that.
As the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, the Judge Advocate General—the most senior judge in the Service Prosecuting Authority, the person who is the most knowledgeable about all these issues and who was in place for 16 years when these issues were being dealt with—says that this Bill does not address the issue. I will quote him again later on, because he is clearly not some left-wing, liberal lawyer or somebody who wants to undermine the armed forces; he is somebody who wants this country to succeed.
In the witness statements to the Bill Committee, the overriding view of the witnesses was that the principal failing was the failure to include war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture in schedule 1, which in their view contravenes the UK’s commitment to international law and invites the attention of the International Criminal Court.

Bob Stewart: Article 3 of the Geneva conventions covers torture and crimes against humanity, and there is a convention on torture itself. When I was a member of the armed forces, we were subject to that as our highest priority. Indeed, I often used the Geneva conventions to justify my actions, and the Geneva conventions guide the armed forces. All those people who go on operations are guided by the Geneva conventions, I promise that.

David Davis: My hon. and gallant Friend is exactly right, and I want to see the reputation that comes from that preserved after this Bill becomes law.
I will briefly address the weaknesses of two parts of the Bill separately—this addresses directly my hon. Friend’s comments: first, the criminal prosecutions and then the civil cases.
Prosecutions against armed forces personnel are not brought by just any lawyer. They are brought by the Service Prosecuting Authority, which is part of the Ministry of Defence. As it stands, a prosecution can be  brought only where there is sufficient evidence that the accused committed the offence and where it is in the public interest that the prosecution should be made. There is therefore already a high threshold for prosecution. As a result, since 2000, there have been 27 prosecutions. Given how many thousands of members of our armed forces have been in operations in difficult circumstances—in close quarters with the civilian population, fighting against an asymmetric enemy—that is an astonishingly low number. That is not a prosecution system that is out of control. That alone shows that the system is not slanted against soldiers.

Julian Lewis: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the prosecution system is not out of control, but does he agree that the investigatory system is? To answer my own intervention on the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), is my right hon. Friend aware that clause 3(2)(b) says that the five-year limit will not apply unless
“compelling new evidence has become available”?
Why is he not reassured by that?

David Davis: I will tell my right hon. Friend in a moment exactly why I am not reassured by that, but he is quite right that the issue is the repeated investigation of people who are innocent, in most cases. That is a harassing and destructive thing. The best known case is that of Major Campbell, who underwent eight investigations. I am afraid that the real blame lay with the Ministry of Defence for at least four of them. That is what we should address.
As I say, the prosecution system is not slanted against soldiers. I will give the rather gruesome, well known example of Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old Iraqi man who, in 2003, was dragged from his desk while working as a hotel receptionist by British soldiers, handcuffed and taken to a detention facility in Basra. Thirty-six hours later, he had been beaten to death, having suffered 93 separate injuries while in the custody of British forces. The number of solders convicted of murder as a result: zero. The number convicted of manslaughter: zero. There was a single conviction of one soldier, who confessed to inhumane treatment and got one year in prison.
It is difficult for prosecuting and other authorities to make out a clear-cut case of torture, inhumane treatment or even manslaughter, so I do not believe that the system operates against the interests of the armed forces. Indeed, on the several occasions on which the Government have been asked to produce a case of vexatious prosecution—not investigation, but prosecution—they have never been able to name one. That is not surprising. The Service Prosecuting Authority—the body that brings prosecutions—already dismisses claims that it believes are vexatious. In evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Nicholas Mercer, the former Command Legal Adviser in Iraq, said:
“Before I left the army, I gave legal advice on a number of prominent cases…I found a case that was without merit and I closed it. It was as simple as that. I do not need legislation to do that. It happens already.” That is a good reflection on our system, and we should not be ashamed of it.
The area of contention, which has been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central, is the triple lock against prosecutions. The Government’s   own stated aim is to raise the bar for prosecutions after five years. In its scrutiny of the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded:
“a limitation period that would prevent prosecutions is unlawful under international law if it prevents investigations and prosecutions in relation to torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.”
The Government state that the measure is not a statute of limitations. The Law Society, which some may dismiss, agrees with the JCHR, and concludes that the presumption against prosecution creates a “quasi-statute of limitation” that is “unprecedented” in criminal law, and represents
“a significant barrier to justice.”
Rather more importantly, the Judge Advocate General, whom I described earlier, has said:
“In my view, what this Bill does is exactly the opposite of what it is trying to do. What it is trying to do is to stop ambulance-chasing solicitors and vexatious and unmeritorious claims. The Minister quite rightly said we want rigour and integrity. What it actually does is increase the risk of service personnel appearing before the International Criminal Court. That is why I said it was ill conceived.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c.117-18, Q234.]
That is the Judge Advocate General, the most expert person in the country on this subject. He also described, incidentally, the Bill as bringing
“the UK armed forces into disrepute”.
If the Government really think that schedule 1 does not make justice more difficult, they would not have excluded sexual offences from the remit of the Bill. If it is not difficult to get a prosecution, why exclude any category? It was right to exclude sexual offences, and the Government should exclude torture on exactly the same grounds. That is the point of the amendment in my name and in that of many others.
I have a couple of minutes, so I will deal briefly with the issue of civil claims. There have been 1,000 civil claims, according to the Ministry of Defence, all of them against the Ministry, not against individual soldiers—as far as I can tell. Surprise, surprise, someone trying to get money goes to the Ministry, not to a poverty-stricken soldier. However, that does not help veterans; it actually hinders veterans.
The point has been made by other Members, so I will press it no further, except to quote the British Legion director-general:
“it protects the Ministry of Defence from civil action—from someone bringing a case. That longstop does not protect the armed forces personnel.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q161.]
Of course, what the Bill could stop are the sorts of cases that exposed Snatch Land Rover, the lack of provision of body armour and a number of other scandals, which quite properly improved the operation the MOD.
The Bill does the same for torture cases. All the stories about torture and rendition came in the first instance from civil cases—all of them. That is what brought them into the public domain; there was not a single criminal prosecution in the first instance. It is difficult to bring a torture case. In most, only two people know about the torture: the victim and the oppressor—the torturer, or torturers. Typically, no other  evidence is available in the public domain. A case is difficult. Even in the case of Belhaj, the most famous torture case—we delivered Mr Belhaj and his pregnant wife to the Libyans, for heaven’s sake—it took 10 years, essentially, to get to court, and of course he got an apology from the Prime Minister. That is why the issue of torture is almost impossible to bring to court.
Time is running out, so I will finish by quoting the questions that the Judge Advocate General put to the Minister in Committee. He said that
“six Royal Military Police were killed…in 2003”,
and asked:
“would we accept that there would be a presumption against… prosecution”
of their murderers? Would we expect special arrangements—

Nigel Evans: Order. I will let the right hon. Member read the quote before finishing.

David Davis: I will read the quote:
“Would we be content that a member of the Iraqi Government’s consent would be needed to prosecute? Would we accept a decision by that person not to prosecute? In my view, there would be outrage in this country if”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 128, Q278]—
the Iraqis behaved in that way. The Judge Advocate General said that we should always remember that the law should be “even-handed” to all people.

Gavin Robinson: It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate on Report, and to do so early, following the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and a number of other contributors. Time is tight on proceedings, but had the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) spoken for the entirety of the Opposition, Members would have been largely content. I was clear on Second Reading that, while we support the Bill, many aspects of it could have been—and I regret were not—improved in Committee.
I will make this broader point at this stage: just because the Government have the strength of votes does not mean that they have a monopoly on wisdom, or that they should not engage more productively and proactively with some of the concerns that have been expressed. I do not say that belligerently or to cause difficulty; those who have served with me on the Defence Committee know that I approach such matters sincerely. I say it because we want to see the right outcome and the right protection for our service personnel. I am afraid that, following the Bill Committee, we are not quite there yet. We have the opportunity this evening to make necessary amendments.
I will repeat at this stage, although it is not part of the Bill, that I resent the fact that Northern Ireland provisions have not been brought forward. The Minister gave me a commitment on Second Reading—I am glad that he did—that the Government will not resile from the commitments that they have given to veterans who served in Northern Ireland. I accept that progress on those provisions is now, regrettably, outwith the Minister’s domain, but that commitment is still there from the Government and we look forward to seeing how they will honour it.

Colum Eastwood: Does the hon. Member recognise that there is already an international agreement—it is called the Stormont House agreement—to deal with issues of legacy in Northern Ireland? It seems now that the Government are determined to abandon that agreement and abandon the victims of the conflict too. Does he think that that is a sensible way to proceed—that the Government will again abandon an international agreement?

Gavin Robinson: The hon. Member’s contribution is timely. We know what commitments were given during the New Decade, New Approach agreement on legacy matters in Northern Ireland, and we wait to hear from the Government where they are. Both of us have engaged in conversations recently about where that may go. While we may wish it to go in different directions, I am not sure that either of us will be overly satisfied with what emerges.
I want to touch on a number of key aspects of the Bill. I saw that the Minister, with his normal enthusiasm, talked at the weekend about some of those seeking to amend the Bill being “deeply disingenuous”, “repeating campaign lines” and
“talking a good game…but fundamentally unwilling to lift a finger”
to protect service personnel. He made those comments. I am sharing them because I want to say categorically that they do not accord with me as a signatory of amendments 1 to 10, and nor do I believe that they appropriately accord with others who have signed the amendments.
I think it is right to say that people are being disingenuous if they think that war crimes or genocide are issues that are precluded under the Bill. They are not—they are clearly included in schedule 1—but the Government are wrong not to refocus and think again about torture. Torture should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. I say that very clearly, drawing on the comments by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). He was right to reflect that clause 3(2)(b) draws on cases where there has been an investigation before, but what it does not do, and what it should do—I referred to this on Second Reading—is rule out the provisions of the Bill being used where there has not been an investigation at all.
Can it genuinely be the case that where issues are raised around torture where there has not been an investigation at all, we accept that the presumption against prosecution should be engaged? I do not think so. I have clearly argued, alongside the Minister as a member of the Defence Committee, that where the state has discharged its duty through a satisfactory investigation, then we can seek to protect our service personnel from prosecution, but not before.
We are asking the Attorney General to make the determination through the provisions of this Bill. That is the very same Attorney General who will be asked to agree that, because this Bill is being used, our service personnel have to go to the International Criminal Court. That cannot be right. Take these issues back to St Aquinas on what a just war is; he considers the morality of war. We as a country stand firmly against torture. When we engage in armed conflict, we operate  on the basis that we share those values—that there is an international norm: our guys will not be tortured because we give a clear commitment that we will not torture theirs. That goes with this Bill.

Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly strong and important point. Does he not also agree that it potentially undermines our standing in some of the key institutions which we are party to internationally? He may not be aware, but we are actually chair of the optional protocol to the convention against torture subcommittee. The gentleman who chairs it on behalf of the United Kingdom is a graduate of Llanrumney High School in my constituency. We have a key role to play in international institutions and in setting standards for the world. If we undermine that through the Bill, we risk Britain’s reputation globally.

Gavin Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a huge danger. The Government are not tearing up our international obligations—I accept that. The Government are not resiling from our international obligations to say torture is wrong, it is abhorrent, it is immoral and it is not something that we will engage in. I agree with the Government on that. But if that is their position, then why not close the circle in the Bill? Why leave it to others to determine in the International Criminal Court, when those issues should be determined here? I say again very clearly that in the context where there has been no investigation at all that cannot be right, be it five years, 10 years or whatever else. I will listen thoughtfully to the Minister in his summing up and hear what he has to say on that. I know he has the strength of numbers. I know he can push it through. I know he can reject the amendments that have been tabled, whether they are amendments 1 to 10 or amendment 32. But I ask him to reflect seriously on that.
Finally, the right hon. Member for North Durham dealt with this issue well in his new clause 1, but new clause 1 should be what the Bill is about: not dealing with the prospect of a prosecution five years after the fact, but dealing with repeated investigations, again and again and again, before the provisions of the Bill are ever engaged. That door remains open. We know some of the Northern Ireland cases that are going through the courts at the moment do not just involve a veteran, elderly and frail, but have also included dawn raids on an elderly and frail veteran of service in Northern Ireland in the ’70s and ’80s. That is outrageous, but none of that is precluded under the terms of the Bill. The investigations issue is worthy of further exploration during today’s proceedings.

Nigel Evans: We will have to introduce a five-minute limit now, because of the pressure of speakers.

Jack Lopresti: I will address briefly some of the points raised in this excellent debate. First, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), for his efforts to bring the Bill before the House. He has been a tireless champion of the veterans community ever since he was elected and it has been a privilege to serve on the Public Bill Committee with him. And I am so pleased he has had his haircut, finally.
This is a Conservative Government who are delivering on our manifesto commitment to begin to ensure that the men and women this House sends on operations, often into harm’s way, are safe from the sort of vexatious, repeat investigations and harassment that some have had to endure after operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. In this country, we are rightly proud of the men and women of our armed forces. In this season of remembrance, it is right for the House to be considering legal safeguards for them on future operations overseas. The Bill begins to address what many have talked about over many years and which we are finally getting to grips with: it provides some reassurance and protection for those deployed in the service of our nation on operations abroad in the future.
With the greatest respect to Members across the House, there has been a great deal of nonsense spoken about this proposed legislation during the passage of the Bill so far. The statutory presumption against prosecution after five years of any incident does not constitute a pardon, an amnesty or a statute of limitations. Prosecutors will still have discretion over whether to act, bearing in mind the public interest and if there is adequate or new evidence, and, critically, after careful consideration from the Attorney General, who will act in the public interest.
Our service personnel are trained to the highest possible standard and are taught about the laws of armed conflict, as well as the Geneva convention, as some Members mentioned. The Armed Forces Act 2006 clearly states that any criminal act will be considered as an offence under UK law. This proposed legislation does not overturn that principle or statute. This Bill does not make it virtually impossible to bring prosecutions for charges of torture—this is not correct—and I welcome the fact that the threshold for a new prosecution will have to be of an exceptional nature after five years. This legislation will dramatically change the existing culture, where our armed forces personnel are seen as fair game by some lawyers. It is right that any investigation must consider the unique pressures of conflict and decisions made under great stress. This provision will, I am sure, be welcomed by serving personnel and veterans.
This Bill does not prevent personnel from bringing civil claims against the MOD. The six-year time limit proposed applies from the point of knowledge or the point of diagnosis. The MOD estimates that 93.8% of claims by service personnel or their families arising from service in Afghanistan or Iraq would be eligible under the provisions of this Bill. I also welcome the establishment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence of the judge-led review of the wider service justice system. This will I hope ensure that from the beginning when allegations are made or incidents occur, they will be dealt with more swiftly.
The message from this House must be clear to our allies around the world: this Bill does not exclude British personnel on operations from their obligations under international law or the Geneva convention. The wider interpretation of the European convention on human rights has produced additional confusion. In an area where we have unattributed forces acting in grey zone operations, or not wearing uniforms or insignia, the opportunity to provoke incidents and then claim the use  of excessive force will be a more attractive option from these states or others who wish us ill. Crucially, other NATO allies, such as France, obtain a derogation from the ECHR when their forces are deployed overseas on operations. This Bill will put in statute the proviso for Ministers to consider that they would derogate from the ECHR.
In welcoming this Bill, I look forward to supporting the Government’s measures to extend similar protections to our Northern Ireland veterans, which is long overdue. This Government are proud to stand up for our armed forces while they protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I will speak to the amendments and new clauses tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, those in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and those that I have signed tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and others.
I do not want to stray too far from the amendments to hand, but I would like to say that I have sat in on many Bills in this place and I have yet to see one leave Committee completely unamended. Most Ministers accept that Bills as introduced are never perfect. They engage and listen to evidence sessions and Members in Committee, and try to make changes accordingly. It is astonishing that the Bill before us today is identical to the Bill we were presented with on Second Reading—astonishing because not a single witness in oral evidence or in written evidence has expressed full support for the presumption against prosecution in part 1 of the Bill or the civil litigation longstop in part 2 of the Bill.
In fact, there have been strong calls to scrap part 2 of the Bill in its entirety. If the civil litigation longstop part of the Bill remains unamended, there is a high risk that the Ministry of Defence will not be held accountable for violations of soldiers’ and civilians’ rights. The largest proportion of claims made against the MOD are claims of negligence and of breaches of the MOD’s duty of care towards its soldiers. Between 2014 and 2019, the available data shows that such claims amounted to more than 75% of all claims. This legislation will benefit only the Ministry of Defence, yet the Ministry of Defence is the defendant in all those claims. There is a clear conflict. The Minister and the Department have created legislation that protects them from legitimate legal claims. I am unaware of any other instance of our legislation being drafted in such a way to give such inbuilt protection to the defendant over the claimant, especially when there is already legislation in place under the Limitation Act to strike out any baseless claims.
This Bill allows the MOD to strike out not just baseless claims, but any claims, including rightful ones. Those suffering from hearing loss or post-traumatic stress disorder will not always be able to bring claims within the six-year timeframe, for the reasons many in our Committee’s evidence session gave.
There remains a lack of clarity about the number of people who would be disadvantaged by the longstop, but the Government’s impact assessment shows that  at a minimum, 19 injured or bereaved members of the forces community who made claims from operations in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been blocked had the  legislation we are debating today been in place. One member of our brave forces being blocked from a claim is completely out of order, never mind 19. Crucially, we do not know what will happen in the future, but it is likely that there will be drastic unintended consequences and our forces will have less protection than civilians and, in some cases—as has been said—prisoners. There is simply no justification for introducing a time limit where one currently does not exist.
Time and again, we heard that the problem is with the investigative process. Major Robert Campbell’s appalling treatment is something none of us would ever condone, yet there is nothing in the Bill that will solve the problem of investigations. There is nothing in the Bill that will solve the problem of repeated investigations. There is nothing in the Bill that will afford our forces and veterans a duty of care when they are undergoing these investigations. In fact, what the presumption against prosecution and the exemption of torture and war crimes does is make it more likely that our forces personnel will face investigations from the International Criminal Court, for reasons outlined clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).
The Government have rightly identified that there is a problem, and there is a need to provide greater legal protections to armed forces personnel and veterans serving overseas, but they have drafted legislation that makes the problem worse. I urge all Government Members to look beyond the rhetoric and the political spin, read the actual legislation before them and consider these amendments and new clauses carefully before voting tonight to put our armed forces and our veterans at a disadvantage.

Sarah Atherton: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who is a fellow patron of the women’s veterans charity Salute Her, part of Forward Assist and the only other female who sits with me on the Defence Committee.
In consideration of new clause 1, I remind the House why the Bill is necessary. The Government of the day sent the British military into operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for over a decade after, these troops were hounded by lawyers, chasing the money and putting our troops through hell once again. So prolific was this hunt that it was given the name “lawfare”, and it is this lawfare that we seek to address.
Over the past few months, I have spoken to a significant number of serving personnel and veterans about the Bill. What sticks in my mind are five soldiers who specifically told me about their experiences of being investigated through Operation Northmoor and the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. All were vexatious claims and four left the service as a direct consequence of their treatment—exemplary soldiers all feeling let down and betrayed. All five believe the Bill would have protected them in some form, and they all welcome its introduction.
Retention is a big challenge for the military, especially the Army. In the British military, we train soldiers to the highest standard. Their professionalism and capabilities are renowned across the globe, but the military is a bottom-up organisation. Someone cannot enter the Army  as a regimental sergeant major. Promotion comes from within the ranks. We have lost many to this lawfare and even worse is the feeling that service personnel and veterans are not valued. There have been over 4,000 lawfare compensation claims made against personnel, and only one went to prosecution. Just think about that litigious process and what it did to the remaining 3,999 people’s mental health and wellbeing and the impact on their families, and it was allowed to happen.
Opponents of the Bill suggest that it protects soldiers from prosecution against war crimes and crimes against humanity, and I support the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) regarding the Geneva convention. The Bill offers no such protection. The service personnel I have spoken to are unanimously affronted by the suggestion that they want and would be protected by such an Act. They find the mention of blanket immunity abhorrent.
I cannot miss out on the opportunity to mention Northern Ireland. More service personnel died in those troubles than in Iraq and Afghanistan put together, and I have already received ministerial assurances, but I urge the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Northern Ireland to expedite this provision for those veterans who served.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady brings up a pertinent point. Obviously, the Bill provides protection,but there does not seem to be the same protection for soldiers who served on Operation Banner, the greatest operation in British history. Does she feel that this protection should be extended to those who served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner, so that they have the same protection as they would have if they had served in Afghanistan or Iraq?

Sarah Atherton: I am just about to say that they, too, should be afforded certainty that the unique operational pressures placed upon them will be taken into account. Prosecution decisions are made on alleged historical offences, and I understand that there will be some debate in this House on that matter.
I have spent the past few weeks scrutinising the Bill line by line in the Public Bill Committee, along with a number of other Members. Is the Bill perfect? No, it is not, but it is infinitely better than where we are now. No Bill or Act will ever suit all people in all circumstances, but which group would object to this Bill the most? It is the group who would lose out the most: the unscrupulous human rights lawyers. Service charities welcome the Bill, although I acknowledge that they have some reservations. But all service personnel and veterans want to be and should be supported by the Government, their politicians and their people. After all, they are prepared to, and do, put their lives at risk for us, and this is the duty of care these service personnel want. This Bill goes some way in offering that support, and I welcome it.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to you for the opportunity to take part in this debate, Mr Speaker. As the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) indicated, it bears a remarkable similarity to the one we had on Second Reading, because, it would appear, of how matters were proceeded with in  Committee. That is unfortunate, because on Report the House is charged with the more detailed scrutiny of the sort we would normally expect to have and the Bill will be the poorer for its lack. I have listened with care and attention, occasionally trying to intervene, but I am struck by the fact that so many of those who speak in favour of the Bill continue to do so on the basis of seeking somehow to limit civil claims being brought against the Ministry of Defence.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) spoke about lawfare and made a good point; I speak as a distantly former solicitor and the behaviour she refers to was disgraceful. However, the way to deal with such utterly disgraceful behaviour lies with the regulatory authorities for the legal profession; it is not necessarily for this House to start driving a coach and horses through the important protections we all enjoy, which ultimately benefit most of our armed forces personnel. I do not understand why part 1—an interference with the prosecution and the creation of a presumption against prosecution in criminal cases—will make any difference to the spectacle we saw in relation to lawfare.
Let me deal briefly with the provisions tabled by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). His suggestion in new clause 1 is sensible: judicial oversight of some sort for investigatory processes in the context where, as we all know, it is difficult to come by evidence, because it has to come from a theatre of conflict. That sort of protection is sensible, and it is unfortunate that the inadequacy of our proceedings today will not allow his proposal the sensible scrutiny and debate it deserves.
However, I wish to focus the bulk of my remarks on amendment 1, tabled by the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). For me, the operation of the presumption against prosecution in relation to torture is the most egregious aspect of this Bill. I suspect that if we could sort that—I am pretty certain that it will be sorted when the Bill goes to the other place—then we could probably fairly easily build a consensus around the Bill: the sort of consensus that, by and large, we manage to achieve most of the time in relation to the conduct of and support for our armed services.
I was struck by what the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) said about the various protections that he claims are within the Bill and how that would still make it possible to bring prosecutions in the exceptional circumstances envisaged by its authors. There is some merit in his proposition, but it did occur to me that if these provisions are adequate for torture, they should also be adequate for protections against sexual offences—but sexual offences are carved out in schedule 1 expressly because they should never be countenanced under any circumstances. It is absolutely right that they should be carved out in schedule 1 for those reasons, but it is for those reasons that torture should also benefit from the same sort of exemption that we have seen in respect of sexual offences.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden touched on Belhaj. I will say only this: let us remember that the Belhaj papers were only found, following the fall of Gaddafi, entirely by accident. That is how difficult it can sometimes be to obtain the evidence of torture.

Joy Morrissey: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being a tireless advocate for veterans and making this Bill possible. I also thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his loquacious advocacy for veterans throughout the Bill Committee. He raised questions about the participation of other Members, but I would wager that his words that poured forth throughout the Committee covered every aspect of anything we may have an interest in.

Stuart Anderson: I was not in the Chamber when that was said earlier, but it is fair to say that I made over 40 interventions in the Back-Bench debate, so I certainly contributed to the Bill Committee in that regard, as did many other Members. It would therefore be unfair to say that there was no contribution from Conservative Members.

Joy Morrissey: It was indeed an honour to serve on the Committee, because I myself, although not serving in the military, had two brothers who were veterans, and I saw the way that war and conflict tore their lives and our family apart.
I have spoken to many veterans who have said that they were at the point of wanting to kill themselves—some attempted it—for the fear of being prosecuted through these kinds of claims. The Bill protects the men and women who have risked their lives and fought to keep us safe and free. It allows our brave servicemen and women to go overseas to fight and represent us, and then come back and safely carry on their lives. That is what the Bill was intended to do, and I believe that that is what it will do.
I appreciate the plethora of amendments presented by the right hon. Member for North Durham. I am grateful for his studious nature in making sure that we have covered every aspect of these clauses. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) mentioned, the investigative system is out of control. The Bill goes some way towards mitigating that, and we could perhaps have gone even further. The issue of derogation, which was raised at the start, was not further discussed, but we could have done so with a greater level of debate.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Member give way?

Joy Morrissey: Not at the moment.
The issue of derogation before an overseas conflict or an overseas mission is started might go a long way in any claims made retrospectively after the mission and whatever conflict we have engaged in is completed.
Those are small things that we could have looked at in further detail, but I appreciate and support the Bill.  I am grateful to all those who have contributed, and I hope that we will be able to do what we promised in our manifesto commitment, which is to take care of veterans.

Sarah Owen: Since this Bill came before us, I have had serious misgivings about its aim and its effectiveness. As it has progressed unamended, we have heard evidence from military and legal experts as well as charities, all stating that the Bill does not provide the protections that the Government claim it  does for our armed forces. Worse than failing to protect our armed forces and their families, it risks limiting them from holding the Ministry of Defence to account when it fails to equip armed personnel properly or when it makes serious errors leading to injury and, in some cases, sadly, death. That was confirmed when the Royal British Legion director general told MPs on the Committee:
“I think it is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q163.]
During the past 16 years, there have been 25,000 civil cases against the MOD by British troops who have been injured or their families. If this Bill goes through without protecting the armed forces covenant, we could potentially see thousands of personnel, veterans and families left wanting when what they deserve is justice. When looking at legislation, I always ask, “What’s the problem that this is trying to solve?” When we compare the 25,000 civil cases against the MOD with the number of vexatious claims, we should be questioning who is really being protected with this Bill. Unlike the Minister, I completely agree with the Royal British Legion’s director general: this Bill is about protecting the MOD, not service personnel.

Johnny Mercer: It is important to correct the record. The claims that the hon. Lady refers to have not happened overseas, so those figures are not right. This Bill is specifically designed for overseas operations, and the figures that have repeatedly been raised are incorrect.

Sarah Owen: As has been raised many times by Members on both sides of the House, we would like to know exactly how many, yet we are left wanting.
We know that the armed forces risk their lives every day—[Interruption.] The Minister does not want to hear this. I have already had to suggest to him that he should turn off Twitter and listen to the genuine concerns of Members around the House. We know that the armed forces risk their lives every day, and we owe them a huge debt. We also know that they are sometimes faced with difficult decisions, but even in the heat of war, the rule of law still applies. The Government have provided no rationale for why sexual crimes should be excluded from the Bill, but not torture and other war crimes. All is not fair in love and war. Our armed forces are still bound to international humanitarian law, and the Bill risks UK personnel being dragged to the International Criminal Court, which is why I urge Members to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).
The exclusion of sexual crimes but not torture is important. Under international law, torture is clearly defined as intentional infliction of very serious or cruel suffering, yet the Minister said in Committee that
“we expect our service personnel to undertake activities that are intrinsically violent in nature. These activities can expose service personnel to the possibility that their actions may result in allegations of torture”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2020; c. 206.]
The definition of torture in international law is clear, yet the Minister seemed to deliberately muddle the violent nature of the work of the armed forces with legitimising torture. Given the world that we live in at  the moment, that is a very dangerous path to go down. We are rightly condemning the horrendous abuses by the Chinese state in Xinjiang, the violations of human rights in Kashmir and the plight of the Rohingya people, but how can this Government call out other states for their use of torture and human rights abuses when they seek to pass legislation that legitimises the very same? Some Members on the Government Benches have loudly, and in some cases rather surprisingly, become self-appointed champions of protecting human rights overseas, yet we will see them again walk through the Lobby to vote for a Bill that erodes the international human rights laws that we should all uphold. Our armed forces can and should be held to the same high standards, being protected by, and adhering to, the same international law that we expect of others.

Carla Lockhart: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) in this debate.
My colleagues and I support the good intention of this Bill. It is the right thing to do to protect those who have protected us and this nation, and indeed many other innocents, in the face of the threat to life and the oppression of fundamental rights.
The Bill is not drafted perfectly, but tonight we have an opportunity to address and debate its deficiencies. One area of significant concern is torture. Amendments 1 to 10 seek to address that deficiency and, indeed, go a long way towards addressing this matter of grave public concern. That is the right thing to do. Like sexual offences, torture must fall outside the provisions of this Bill. Let us do nothing to undermine the values we hold dear as a nation. Where no investigation has taken place, it is absolutely right that the provisions of this Bill do not apply.
Cognisant of the purposes of today’s proceedings, I still wish to raise once again the plight of veterans of Operation Banner. I represent many such veterans who live in my constituency, and indeed hon. Members right across this House do so as well. While the operation was in Northern Ireland, those who served came from right across our United Kingdom and beyond. In the previous debate on this Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I asked the Minister to state that the provisions of this Bill will not become law until the assurances made in the House on 18 March regarding Northern Ireland are fulfilled. The Minister said in response:
“We are clear that we will deliver our commitments to Northern Ireland. In a written ministerial statement on 18 March, we committed to equal treatment for those who served on Op Banner. We will not resile from that position.”—[Official Report, 23 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 1049.]
That is a good intention—it is the right intention—but there is no guarantee. I know from our conversations with veterans that the longer this delay continues the more suspicious they get. This is wrong, and I need to know that the Minister believes it is wrong as well, so what is the cause of the delay? Those who await the knock at the door for standing up to terrorism deserve answers, and I urge the Minister to give those answers today.
The Bill is welcome and delivers on promises made  by the Government, but we must no longer leave some veterans behind as prey to vexatious prosecutions. That  is wrong, especially if, as suspected, it is for no other reason than to give a sop to the political front of the very people who killed and maimed many of those they served beside.

James Sunderland: Having been spared the commitment of serving on the Bill Committee, I am fortunate also to have been spared some of the polarisation that has affected this Bill, so I talk today from a position of complete objectivity. Having also tracked this important journey very carefully for many years, both professionally and personally, I believe this is an essentially good piece of work that deserves a fair passage through Parliament.
As I stated on Second Reading, any new legislation needs to be set in the context of the prevailing macro-conditions and previous legislation. This Bill fills a void where little has previously existed, so I commend the Minister for his vision, resilience and fortitude to date.
The bottom line is that this Bill delivers on the Conservative manifesto commitment to address the issue of vexatious claims and makes the first substantial amendments of their kind to the Human Rights Act by limiting the time during which claims can be brought. I can say from experience that this is what our armed forces want. They aspire to better protected in law. They want to know that the country values their service. They need to know that they will be supported if they pull the trigger lawfully and, after the misery of the ambulance-chasing years, they want the threshold for prosecution to be raised so that the endless knocks at the door finally stop. This is a no-brainer.

Bob Stewart: Not only the ambulance-chasing lawyers, but it is really good that we will not ever see the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, which really made our soldiers’ lives hell when it investigated them. That will not happen again either.

James Sunderland: I could not agree more.
I am aware that several amendments were tabled in Committee, but none was agreed to. The Bill is hence essentially unaltered from Second Reading, so perhaps it is no surprise that such a large list is being considered today. I will admit that some of the amendments have merit. Having been contacted over the weekend by the eminent hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I have looked in particular at amendments 1 to 10. My view, however, is that this Bill will not prevent the UK from rightly prosecuting acts of torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, and that the Bill does not need to exclude these from its triple lock because existing provisions already exist in law.
I also struggle with the notion that the MOD would somehow fail to investigate or prosecute, because the bad apples will always face justice, as indeed they did during my time in uniform. Regarding torture, the Government’s position is that the presumption against prosecution will not prevent any prosecutor from considering the severity of the crime or the unique circumstances in which it was committed. Indeed, war is a nasty business, so I do not believe that a court should somehow be prevented from giving weight to the mental health of the individual or the prevailing conditions.  Hence I am minded against amendments 21 and 22. I agree with the Minister that this would be nonsensical, as prosecutors should give recognition to the difficulty, the trauma and the acute stress of military operations, as any member of HM forces will testify.
In addition, the Bill confirms that on a case-by-case basis, a prosecutor can determine that a crime is exceptional, so there is no collision course here with the UN convention against torture, the Geneva convention, the Hague or even NATO, as nothing will be swept under the carpet. As for the five-year time limit, this is correct, as the clock will start ticking from the point at which matters come to light, not from the time of the alleged incident. That was also the overwhelming preference during the public consultation. Not only should it be possible for all the evidence to be gathered within a five-year period, but I concur with the Minister that memories do fade, that evidence does deteriorate and that it remains in the interests of everyone involved to deliver justice quickly. I do not therefore support amendments 18 and 19, which seek to lengthen the period to 10 years. This is ultimately about taking pressure off our people, not prolonging it.
Part 2 of the Bill relates to claims by service personnel against the MOD. As 94% of all employer liability claims against the MOD since May 2007 have been brought within the limitation longstop of six years, I agree that there should be a time limit here, too. To be fair, I have considered the suggestion that this Bill is more about protecting the MOD than it is about protecting HM forces, but that, too, is ridiculous. I note that the time limit extends here, too, from the point at which the issue first came to light. There is more than enough time here for any complaint to be submitted, and the MOD cannot simply write a cheque for yesteryear. I will be voting against new clauses 5 and 6 and amendment 23 if they are divided on.
Lastly, I am aware that this Bill has attracted lots of interest in the media in recent months, so I want to set the record straight: I am not convinced that the criticism from the Royal United Services Institute, the Royal British Legion, the Joint Committee on Human Rights or other senior figures is necessarily fair, as the Bill delivers what it says on the tin. Having read it in detail, I am clear, too, that any new presumption against prosecution is not a statute of limitations and does not in any way create a bar to either investigations or prosecutions. Unlike some, I have complete faith in both our legal system and our armed forces, so I commend this Bill to the House.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: We all agree that the aims of the Bill are noble, and that the idea of revolving investigations or a life in investigatory purgatory, never knowing when a vexatious investigator will come knocking at the door, is wrong and must end. The mental stress of that legal uncertainty needs clarity. The loopholes need to be closed and fixed, but this Bill does not do that. It does not even come close. In fact, in a number of areas, it makes things worse.
On Second Reading, I said that we needed a system of oversight that limited the investigations and allowed investigations to be paused if they were vexatious or unnecessary. New clause 1 proposes a system along   those lines. That is where the Bill really should have ended; the rest of the Bill is almost superfluous. But instead the Government have insisted on adding law. My view is that, where it is unnecessary, we should not have law. Bad law, which is what the Government are adding, is often worse than no law.
One of the areas of bad law was dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). To prohibit war crimes and crimes against humanity, which include torture, and to include a specific mention of torture and genocide, is needed. If people say that that is not needed, the question is, why is it needed for sexual crimes, for which the Government rightly admit it is needed in the Bill, but not for those other serious crimes?
The other area that the Bill disadvantages is veterans themselves. The amendments from the Labour Front Bench would, I hope, correct that, but unless they are passed, it seems that the Bill inadvertently makes veterans second-class citizens in our country in terms of employment and liability law. That really cannot stand. It cannot be the basis of law to disadvantage veterans over others. That is a fundamental wrong that should not be allowed to pass. That is why the Labour Front Bench’s amendments are important and must be supported.
The reality is that the current prosecuting requirements for public interest are sufficient, in the main, for the issues that the Government are trying to deal with in the other clauses of this Bill. If they are not, renewed prosecutory guidelines can always be presented. The Bill beyond new clause 1 was actually unnecessary.
When I stand in remembrance, as many—I hope all—Members will next week, of people who have lost their lives, I always say, “Never forget. Never again.” If the Bill passes without amendment, it will be a great shame on all of us, because it will disadvantage our veterans. It will not uphold their rights or the best practice of the best of the British armed forces in this country.
The idea that we could see our veterans or active armed service personnel in front of an ICC investigation is one of the most shocking parts of the Bill. I can imagine an investigation being launched by the ICC prosecutor in a few years’ time, because they are obliged to look into matters where there is not due process in the home country. I can see that threshold being quite easily met. Prosecution may never come, but the terror of the investigation will. I can see the clamouring of Government Members who will say, “This is disgusting—foreign prosecutors prosecuting our service personnel!” Well, it will be disgusting, and it will be this Bill that will have caused it. We must not allow that.

Imran Ahmad Khan: During last year’s general election campaign, the protection of our service personnel and veterans was the biggest issue that I encountered on the doorsteps of Wakefield, beside Brexit. From tackling the morally bankrupt state of homelessness among the veteran population to ensuring that they are protected from vexatious litigation claims, I am proud to stand behind 4,200 veterans in my constituency and will continue not only to represent and defend them but to champion their causes and those of their families, and to ensure that they receive fair treatment by our society, to which they have given so much.
It is the Conservative party that has always championed and defended our service personnel and veterans. It is the Conservatives who have consistently defended Trident and raised defence spending above the NATO target  of 2%. This Bill is doubling down on our beliefs and commitments. It is designed to provide our service personnel and veterans with the protections needed from vexatious claims and repeated investigations.
We should, of course, hold our armed forces servicemen and women to the highest standards. For that exact reason, the Bill does not prevent prosecutions where genuine wrongdoing is found to have occurred. The five-year threshold for prosecutions means that victims have a long window in which to put forward their allegations. As I understand the Bill, the threshold does not apply in cases that are exceptional and begins only from the point of knowledge, such as in the case of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Those on the Opposition Benches unfairly claim that the Bill legalises torture and war crimes committed by service personnel, risks undermining our justice system and defends only the Ministry of Defence. That is ridiculous and demonstrably false. Credible investigations can and will be pursued when there is either new compelling evidence or, as I mentioned, in exceptional circumstances, such as cases of sexual offences.
For almost 20 years, before I was returned to this place, I often found myself in diverse places spanning four continents, living and working alongside our courageous armed forces. I am committed to ensuring that those who have, continue to or will gallantly serve the United Kingdom in our armed forces should not have to face repeated investigations years after they have served on operations. The Bill advances the protection of our service personnel, but not to the detriment of victims or at the cost of our revered justice system. I urge all Members from all parties to support the passage of the Bill.

Nadia Whittome: Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the former deputy legal adviser at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, says that the Bill calls into question the UK’s commitment to a “rules-based international system”. As of today, nearly a dozen United Nations human rights special rapporteurs and experts have declared that the Bill will violate the
“UK’s obligations under international humanitarian law, human rights law and international criminal law”.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission says that it is
“profoundly concerned by the risk to human rights that this Bill poses.”
The Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces says that the Bill risks bringing
“the UK armed forces into disrepute”.
How can the Minister justify sticking his fingers in his ears in the face of such grave concerns voiced by legal, defence and human rights experts? Why is this legislation so out of step with the similar legislation of allied countries such as the US and Canada?
I am proud of the strength and unity of Labour’s opposition to the Bill on final Reading, because our party has a record of championing human rights and fighting for the dignity of workers and for the rule of law—everything that the Bill flies in the face of. As my  right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman)said at the time of the recent publishing of the Human Rights Joint Committee report, it is not the drafting of the Bill that is the problem, because it is perfectly drafted in accordance with the policy; it is the policy itself that is the problem.
This Bill is rotten to its core. Speaking of the Human Rights Joint Committee report, the Minister was unable to explain which vexatious prosecutions would have been stopped by the Bill, so perhaps he can tell us today. No? I didn’t think so, because the answer is none. What is particularly disrespectful and distasteful is this Government’s disingenuous claim that anyone who opposes the Bill is anti-armed forces. I suppose that includes the Royal British Legion, too. A Government source, in characteristically anonymous fashion, told The Guardian this morning that Labour’s stance on the Bill
“confirms their long-held disdain for armed forces personnel”.
Let me tell Conservative Members what disdain for our armed forces personnel looks like. It is shoving through this Bill, despite concerns from the Royal British Legion and senior military figures; it is breaching the armed forces covenant; it is stripping soldiers of their employment rights; and it is rewarding new recruits with poverty pay, with one of the lowest salaries in the public sector at just over £15,000 a year. For more than 300 years, torture has been illegal in this country. The Bill would overturn that principle, and that would be a moment of national shame. So tonight, as a matter of pride, I will be voting against this Bill—this irredeemable anti-veteran and anti-human rights piece of legislation—for the second time.

Stuart Anderson: I am sure that I will have a different view to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). I find myself in a surreal place, because I have gone full circle. I once moaned, as a soldier, about not enough being done in this House for the armed forces. Now, I am contributing to legislation that I honestly believe will have a positive impact on our armed forces.
Looking back at the different overseas operations I have served on and being able to bring those experiences to the House has been a huge honour. I was fortunate enough to speak in the first debate about what I did on operations, and also to sit through several weeks of scrutiny on the Bill Committee. I have learnt a lot during this process, and gained a greater understanding of the huge complexities involved in bringing legislation through this House. It is clear that the Minister for Defence People and Veterans has done so much to get the Bill here, and I pay tribute to all the work he has done to get it to this stage.
When I look at all that is said in this House in support of our armed forces, I scratch my head and wonder why it has taken this long to bring this legislation to the House. I have looked back and reflected to try to find out why this was the case. When I joined the Army straight from school several decades ago, the armed forces were not popular. We were not high on satisfaction ratings. We were not allowed in any of the places in the towns where we were posted. We were restricted from most places we went to. People did not come out into the streets and clap for the armed forces, so maybe it  would not have been a popular decision to bring a Bill such as this to the House at that time. This has quite rightly changed now, and people do support our armed forces. Maybe that is why people are now saying so much about the forces that they have not said in the past. In this House, you cannot move for support for our troops, yet it is only now that this Bill is being brought forward.
I genuinely think that there is honest support across the House for our troops, and that all Members want the best for them. However, words do not protect our troops. We need to go further, and action is what is needed. As MPs, if we suffer a bad day, we hit the headlines. We might have a media campaign against us, someone might put graffiti on our office or we might end up having harassment. None of that is right, but it passes. It does not change our lives forever. However, when someone is serving on overseas operations, a split second can change their life forever when that shot is fired, that improvised explosive device is set off or that rocket comes into their base when they are asleep. A limb is lost. They witness a friend being killed. Ultimately, people lose their lives.
After an overseas operational tour, something is left on that battlefield. You never come back the same. The time for words has passed. We now need to support our armed forces, and we need to do so by supporting the Bill.

Gareth Bacon: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). When my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) was in her place, she outlined the concept of lawfare. There can be no doubt that that exists and has been exploited, leading to vexatious claims against our brave armed forces personnel over a considerable period of time.
Cases such as that of Major Robert Campbell are absolutely scandalous. This man had to face eight separate investigations over 17 years into a single incident that took place back in 2003. He is only 47, so we are talking about more than a third of his life. Each investigation cleared him, only for the goalposts to be moved for each successive investigation. The toll taken on that completely innocent man, who put his life on the line for his country, is enormous.
Tragically and shamefully, he is not alone. To put it into perspective, a long-running streak of claims have been dismissed as far back as the 2009 al-Sweady inquiry, which took five years, cost £25 million and the conclusion of which was that the allegations were
“wholly without foundation and entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility”.
Furthermore, the Iraq historic allegations team determined that 70% of cases did not have a case to answer or that it would be disproportionate to conduct an investigation. Similarly, as of June, the service police legacy investigations had closed or were in the process of closing 1,200 allegations. Operation Northmoor, which took three years and cost £10 million, resulted in no charges, but all that takes significant time and causes huge distress to those under repeated investigation.
Our servicemen and women make enormous sacrifices on behalf of our country and the practice of hounding them must come to an end. It is therefore right that the  Government seek to raise the bar for prosecutions in overseas operations by requiring prosecutors to have proper regard to the uniquely challenging circumstances into which we send our personnel to risk their lives on our behalf, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West.
Opponents of the Bill have said that it would issue an amnesty for torture and war crime offences, but that is simply not the case. As the Minister has been at pains to make clear, the Bill does not provide blanket immunity from prosecution; it merely raises the threshold for the prosecution of alleged offences. Those opponents have also claimed that it would damage the reputation of our armed forces. I question instead what sort of a country we would be if we allowed our armed forces to continue to make enormous personal sacrifices only to return back home and be at the mercy—for years—of tank-chasing lawyers such as Phil Shiner, who was, of course, struck off for his actions. The Minister has outlined at length how the Bill meets the UK’s obligations under domestic and international law. I look forward to hearing him do so again in his closing speech.
Most Members on both sides of the House sincerely support our armed forces, but there have always been some who have taken sides against our armed forces and shown no respect whatsoever for our veterans. I am not among them. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who said that the Bill goes some way to protecting our armed forces but probably not far enough. However, it does improve the current unacceptable position. I therefore support the Bill to protect our armed forces.

Ian Paisley Jnr: May I say at the outset that I am extremely proud of our armed services and their conduct, their calibre and their gallantry? They are well renowned and well supported across Ulster. They are applauded, and have been for many years, even through the dark years when people did not like the armed services so much, because people know the sacrifice that young squaddies made to hold the line between peace and chaos in a part of the United Kingdom. They were, and are, applauded.
In principle my party welcomes the Bill and wants to support it. We do think there are many ways in which it could be improved, and we hope the Minister is listening to those calls for improvement. We are bitterly disappointed that the legislation will fulfil only part of the Government’s manifesto commitment—part of the commitment on which Members canvassed around the whole of this nation to obtain support. I will come to the detail of that in a moment.
When I was a student at university, I had a tutor from Germany. She recounted to me a story about one of her earliest and most confusing experiences of Northern Ireland. She wanted to call a colleague here at King’s College London, and for her it was not a problem. She picked up the phone, she dialled the number, and she was told by the switchboard operator at Queen’s University, “That’s fine—that’s a local call.” Some time later, she had to call a colleague at Trinity College, Dublin, but she was not able to make the call, and was told by the switchboard operator, “Oh, that is an overseas call, down to Dublin.”
So I understand the confusion that some people might have, and indeed the justification that the Government have put into this piece of legislation to leave Northern  Ireland out, and leave Operation Banner soldiers out, because in theory Northern Ireland is not overseas, and service in Northern Ireland is not an overseas matter: it is a local matter—a domestic issue. But the Government’s manifesto commitment was to all of their personnel, and no matter what way we cut it, and no matter what the small print may now say, those brave and gallant people and soldiers who served in Northern Ireland under Operation Banner have been jettisoned by this piece of legislation.

Johnny Mercer: It may be helpful if at this stage I restate to my hon. Friend the commitment in the Conservative manifesto, which we do not resile from one bit—that those who served with such distinction in a very, very difficult time in Northern Ireland will be entitled to equal treatment when that Bill is brought forward. They have not been jettisoned, they have not been forgotten about, and we will not leave them behind.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Minister for getting to his feet and making that commitment again from the Dispatch Box. That is important, and will go some way to alleviate some of the concerns that have been expressed.
I would just say this. People in Northern Ireland—for good cause—do not believe in the good will of the Northern Ireland Office and its mandarins there. They believe that their attitude to our armed services is that they are expendable, and that there will be a time, when push comes to shove, and if it is expedient, that our soldiers who served in Operation Banner and the police officers in the gallant RUC who supported them would be easily jettisoned in some sort of trade-off with the people who were quite happy to fire bullets at our armed service personnel.

Bob Stewart: I support exactly what my very great friend is saying, but may I point out to the House that no Bill will protect someone like Dennis Hutchings, who has been repeatedly brought back and reinvestigated, in Northern Ireland or elsewhere? This legislation will not be retrospective, as I understand it. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank my dear friend, who has travelled widely in Northern Ireland, both as a soldier and as my guest in my constituency, with former squaddies. The applause that they gave to him is now legendary in Ballymoney; but the Minister will forgive me for saying that probably the less said about that adventure, the better for both of us.
Some Members have made the point that it is difficult to make a prosecution stick. One of the cases that got me into active politics was that of the UDR Four, on which I worked as a researcher, where four soldiers were wrongly convicted of the murder of a civilian in Northern Ireland. Many Members have advocated today the books that they have written on these subjects. I actually did write the book on the case for the UDR Four, with an exceptional foreword by Robert Kee, the eminent historian. In that book, we detailed the case for those soldiers and how their conviction should be quashed. I am delighted to say that three of those convictions were quashed, but it took us 10 years to get that case before the courts and to have those wrongful convictions quashed. So I do not buy that prosecutions will be hard to pursue and make stick.
There is, unfortunately, an unhealthy appetite out there among some people to blame veterans and our armed services. That will not end with this Bill, but we wish it Godspeed and hope that we can get a piece of legislation that will defend our armed services with the integrity that the Minister speaks with.

Olivia Blake: I rise to support amendments 1 to 10 in particular. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for his eloquent argument for the amendments, and I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for putting them forward. I am proud to have put my name to them.
I fear that the Bill fails to meet our obligations on human rights abroad, but it also fails to meet our obligations to service personnel when they return home. The UK should rightly aspire to be a global torch-bearer for human rights, and our military should be held to the highest professional standards. The triple lock and five-year limit on prosecutions in the Bill make a mockery of any claim that we might have respect for human rights and international law. Human rights do not change depending on the miles travelled or the borders crossed. They are universal and non-negotiable. From Hallam to Herat, we all have the right to live free from torture and war crimes. That is why I was appalled to read in the report of proceedings in Committee that Ministers had excluded torture because
“we expect our service personnel to undertake activities that are intrinsically violent in nature,”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2020; c. 206-207.]
which may lead to “allegations of torture” or “war crimes”.
Torture is clearly defined in international law. It is never accidental. It is not a grey area. It is an intentional act of inflicting very serious and cruel suffering on another person. It cannot be justified with heat-of-the-moment arguments, and it is ridiculous to say that conventional military operations could be mistaken for torture. Alongside hundreds of constituents who have contacted me about the Bill, I completely oppose any suggestion that there are any circumstances in which torture might be excusable.
Not only are these proposals an affront to human rights, but they fail to support our veterans, the group the Government say they are defending. The largest number of civil claims made against the MOD are claims of negligence brought by former soldiers. The proposal for a six-year limit on lodging civil claims makes it harder for ex-military personnel to sue the MOD for failure in its duty of care to them. It means that troops who develop PTSD, blindness and other conditions will be left with no recourse to justice. Far from supporting veterans, the Government’s proposals are entirely self-serving.
We should reject any attempt to run down the clock on civil claims, and there can be no “get out of jail free” cards for torture or war crimes. There is no stopwatch on justice, and there are no exceptions—no ifs or buts—on torture or human rights. That is why I will join colleagues in supporting amendments 1 to 10 this evening and in voting against the Bill.

Kim Johnson: When the Government brought this Bill forward, their aim was to end vexatious claims against former service personnel and the Ministry of Defence, but the evidence does not bear out what the Government say is the scale of the problem. No service personnel, present or former, deserve to be investigated and prosecuted for a crime they did not commit, or to be repeatedly investigated without good reason, but the figures, as the Government well know, are not of a scale that would justify the proposals in the Bill.
In relation to Iraq, only a handful of prosecutions have been brought against junior personnel.
Of the civil prosecutions against the MOD over the past five years, just 0.8% related to Iraq. The Minister has said, in relation to the majority of the repeat investigations or delayed prosecutions, that
“one of the biggest problems…was the military’s inability to investigate itself properly and the standard of those investigations…If those investigations were done properly and self-regulation had occurred, we probably wouldn’t be here today”.
Rather than put forward proposals to tackle the real reason behind any repeat investigations or delayed prosecutions, the Bill instead proposes unprecedented and dangerous legal protections, which will create a legal regime that secures immunity for serious offences and inequality before the law for victims of abuse and armed forces personnel.
The former professional head of the armed forces, Lord Guthrie, has said that he is dismayed by the proposals. The Bill, in his view,
“provides room for a de facto decriminalisation of torture”,
which, in turn,
“would be a stain on Britain’s standing in the world.”
It is noted that sexual violence is exempt from the time limitations, but not murder or torture. Not only does that undermine the fundamental credibility of the Bill, as General Nick Parker, former commander of the land forces of the British Army, has said, but it risks undermining Britain’s long-standing and proud adherence to a number of treaties and conventions, notably the Geneva convention. How do this Government think that the Bill, as it stands, in decriminalising torture, enhances the standing of our armed forces? It is more likely to risk British service personnel being dragged into prosecutions at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. That is not my theory, but that of Judge Advocate General Lord Blackett, our most senior military judge.
If the true aim of this Bill was to support serving or ex-forces personnel, it would not have included the time limit on the ability of service members to bring claims against the MOD for negligence and maltreatment. There is plenty of evidence to show how the impact of overseas operations on service personnel is not immediately apparent, with post-traumatic stress disorder especially taking a long time to diagnose—often years after service has ended. How is this fair or just, and how is that helping our armed forces personnel?
It is a fact that the MOD benefits most, and this Bill will make it harder for anyone, civilian or soldier, to hold the Ministry of Defence to account for unlawful  actions and human rights abuses. Why does the Minister continue to ignore the impartial advice of the British Legion that the Bill risks breaching the armed forces covenant, and will he not take another look at the amendments that will prevent that from happening? Unamended, this Bill benefits only the Government and offers no support to our armed forces, and I cannot support it.

Apsana Begum: I am grateful to be called in this important debate.
I believe that this House should promote internationalism that is anti-imperialist and peace seeking, yet as I have raised before in this House and as has been noted by many, the Bill before us could result in torture and other serious crimes being protected from prosecution five years after being committed. That is so clearly in breach of the human rights of those affected by conflicts involving UK armed forces. Due to the amount of time that trials relating to services personnel often take, the five-year period proposed in the Bill is likely to mean that many prosecutions would not be made. Indeed, the whole tenor of this Bill is to deter cases being brought regardless of their merit. I echo Grey Collier, advocacy director at Liberty, when I say that a war crime does not stop being a war crime after five years. This Bill also offers no protection to armed forces personnel; neither does it offer them access to justice.

Bob Stewart: I thank my good friend the Deputy Speaker and the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. I do not understand why she thinks a war crime will not be a war crime after five years. A war crime is a war crime forever, and if the Attorney General considers it to be a war crime, it will be brought to a court. I do not think this Bill stops a war crime being prosecuted if a British soldier, sailor or airman carries one out.

Apsana Begum: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his point, but I disagree with him. The point I am making is about prosecution and allowing for that war crime to be considered by the courts.
If I can continue, I believe in a fair justice system for all. Such a system would have built into it access for justice for armed forces personnel and those bringing cases against them. Most fundamentally, in order to pay tribute and show respect to those who have lost their lives in foreign conflicts—both from the UK and abroad—we must set in place a system of transparency and political accountability. We must face head-on the lasting effects that wars in, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan and sectarian conflicts have had on the lives of many in the UK and around the world. It is only with proper accountability and transparency that we can ensure that such mistakes and injustices are a thing of the past.
Hiding from accountability does not do anyone favours. Rather, it feeds mistrust, because for most people it is only those who have something to hide who fear scrutiny. Going to war and other activity by the armed forces involve decisions about some of the most fundamental values, and people have the right to know what is being done in the name of our country.
I conclude by saying that this Bill will act only to entrench a culture of fear and mistrust, increase the risk of crimes being committed overseas and instigate an opaque justice system, benefiting neither armed forces personnel nor the victims of war.

Nigel Evans: Wind-ups will begin at 5.26, so I will ask whoever is on their feet at that time to resume their seat.

Stephen Farry: I have co-sponsored a number of amendments in the hope—perhaps it is naive—that some of the rougher edges of the Bill can be improved. Ultimately, I think this Bill is flawed from top to bottom and is unnecessary. We have, for example, existing prosecutorial tests. One is the evidential test and the second is the public interest test, which are more than adequate to take into account some of the concerns raised by Members. The Bill also raises the question whether our judiciary are not capable of weeding out vexatious claims whenever they come before them. I believe they are, and we should have confidence in their abilities to address those very points.
The Bill creates some very difficult and unnecessary precedents by breaking up the long-standing convention that everyone is equal before the law. There is no need to put in place measures that create additional prosecutorial tests and hurdles to be jumped in relation to certain categories of people—even those who on the face of it are incredibly deserving of our support, such as our veteran community and current active service personnel.
The most egregious aspect of the Bill is what it does in relation to torture. A number of Members have already said this, but in effect it decriminalises torture. I say “in effect” because that is not on the face of the Bill. That is the outworking of what the provisions entail. People will say that torture and war crimes can still be prosecuted through the courts, but it is a fact that a triple lock of additional hurdles, which do not exist for any other category of criminal offence, is to be put into law, and that makes this situation much more difficult and challenging.
I am conscious that we are all looking across the Atlantic today to see what happens in the US presidential election, and there is a clear interest in ensuring that the values of decency and support for democracy, human rights and the rule of law prevail over those who are pursuing other agendas. At the same time, it is deeply troubling that the Government, and potentially this House, are willing to implement measures on torture in legislation that overturns centuries of precedent. That should be very troubling to us all.

Bob Stewart: I rise to oppose that comment. The Bill does not decriminalise torture. Torture remains a major crime, and I speak as someone who has given evidence in five war crimes trials at The Hague. Torture is torture, and it is still something that the Government deeply oppose. The Bill does not actually legitimise torture in any way.

Stephen Farry: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments. I very much respect his service, and his commitment in that service to upholding the rule of law and the highest standards of international humanitarian law. The point I am making, however, is that while on the surface the Bill does not do what he says, the fact that the triple lock and the additional prosecutorial hurdles in effect create that outcome is, I think, deeply troubling to us all.
There are just two other points I want to make in conclusion, to try to let someone else say a few words. First, anyone who opposes the Bill today should not   be labelled as someone who is opposed to our armed forces. It can be viewed and construed as respecting our armed forces. Let us ask ourselves the question: what was it that they were actually fighting for, particularly when they were in Iraq and Afghanistan? I appreciate that both of those interventions were controversial in many respects, but surely it is about peace, upholding the rule of law in those countries and upholding international law? We therefore do ourselves a great disservice if, in recognising their contribution, we in turn undermine those very values in what we do in the Chamber today.
My final point relates to Northern Ireland. Members have made reference to potential legislation in that regard. I do not look forward to seeing similar legislation being put in place for Northern Ireland—

Nigel Evans: Order. We must come to the winding-up speeches. I call Stewart Malcolm McDonald.

Stewart McDonald: I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am only sorry we did not get to hear the end of the speech by the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry).
I rise to support the new clauses, and to speak to amendment 32 in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I want to begin by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who served on the Bill Committee, among other hon. Members who find themselves here this afternoon. I am afraid to say to hon. Members, particularly those who were with us on Second Reading, that very little has changed from what I said then. In fact, almost nothing has changed from what I said then and that is a great shame. It is the case, then as now, that senior legal, military and political opinion was united in consensus against the Bill. That has not changed. [Interruption.] That did not take very long, did it? The Minister should not worry; I will come to the points that he loves to chunter.

Stuart Anderson: It is not fair to say that opinion is united against the Bill. That is not factual from the evidence given to the Bill Committee.

Stewart McDonald: Well, we will go through some of that evidence, shall we? We will go through some of the comments made by senior military, legal and political opinion that make it quite clear that what I have said is correct. I accept, of course, that there are differences of opinion within those fields, but it is the case, I am afraid to say to the hon. Gentleman and to the Minister chuntering at me from the sidelines, that senior military, legal and political opinion believes that the Bill is farcical in several respects. I will go through them in turn.

Kevan Jones: We cannot get more distinguished than the Judge Advocate General, Judge Blackett, who was firmly of that opinion. The Minister did not perhaps listen, but the judge made his position about the Bill very clear.

Stewart McDonald: Yes, that is entirely correct. Or we could take the former Conservative Defence Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind. I think I said in the previous debate that he is not exactly known as a sandal-wearing, lentil-munching, Guardian-reading lefty hipster type, is he Mr Deputy Speaker? I suspect you know him way better than I do, although we have some experience of him in Scotland, of course. He is against the provisions in the Bill. So when the Minister chunters away that what I have said is incorrect, I am afraid what he needs is a mirror, because what he is saying is fundamentally incorrect.
It did not have to be this way. Back in that Second Reading debate, I said, along with others, that we would try to bring forward amendments to get a Bill we could support. But with every attempt to do so—we will see it again, I am quite sure—we have had the door slammed shut in our faces.
The Minister might win in the Lobby tonight, but for a man so convinced of his powers of charm and persuasion, he has failed to bring forward a Bill that the House can unite behind. Those who were here before the election, and who have been in the few defence-related debates we have had since, will know that, on defence matters—setting aside the nuclear question, certainly for myself—there is actually a lot of consensus in the House. So why is it that the one Minister who brings forward a Bill on issues of security, supporting the armed forces and the rule of law, where that consensus exists, has failed to get any Opposition Member to support him? It is his failure that the Bill will divide tonight, with one or two honourable exceptions, between Government and Opposition Benches.
The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made a fine point, and it speaks to the purpose of amendment 32. If what Conservative Members are saying on torture is correct—if there is really nothing to worry about—I expect all of them to have no issue whatsoever with going into the Lobby with Opposition Members tonight to ensure that torture is removed from the provisions of the Bill that we are so concerned about. Of course, I do not think we will see that.
What we have here is a Bill that does not do what it says it wants to do. I think we all agree that the flawed investigation system needs to be fixed. We are in this situation because the Bill does not address that. The Bill ensures that members of the armed forces will be further exposed to the International Criminal Court, which I do not believe any Member wishes to see. As has been highlighted time and again, the Bill is written in such a way as to protect the Minister and his officials in Main Building, not to best serve members of the armed forces and veterans.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Does the hon. Member share my worry that potentially putting our armed forces up against the International Criminal Court could be the beginning of a path to undermining the Court itself? It is quite easy to see a situation where British service personnel are investigated, and then Conservative Members start braying for us to leave the Court in its entirety.

Stewart McDonald: That is exactly the slippery slope I fear we are on. I hate the phrase “the thin end of the wedge”, but I am afraid that it rather fits where we  are with this Bill and this Government. We have those senior opinions in military, legal and political circles against the Bill. That is before we get to the recent damning report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which made clear the number of flaws in the Bill.
I am conscious of time, so I will conclude. The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), suggested that, were we to change our defence posture with regard to training or peacekeeping in supporting Ukraine, we could be subject to what he called “a Russian hand” trying to take legal action here—no doubt that Russian hand is a Tory donor. That is exactly the kind of thing that would see UK personnel further exposed to the International Criminal Court.

Bob Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stewart McDonald: No, I am going to wind up.
The Minister has to take that into account, but he has failed, and the failure is his alone. I do not want him to think that, when he gets his way tonight, the job is done. The job is not done. He has promised the House legislation to fix the investigation system. My goodness, I hope he will do a better job on that than he has done on this Bill.

John Healey: This is not a wind-up speech. We have had a good debate, with 23 Back-Bench contributions, some really good speeches and serious concerns about the Bill raised on both sides of the House. We are legislating, and I want to say to the Minister that it is wrong to see all criticism as opposition or all opposition as hostility. The Government never get everything right, especially with legislation, and no one has a monopoly on wisdom, especially Ministers. I say to him, it is wrong to dismiss anyone arguing for amendments to the Bill as ill informed or ill willed. There has never been a Bill brought to this House that could not be improved—this is certainly one of those. That is our job as legislators.

Bob Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Healey: I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I am going to deal with some of the points made in the debate, despite this not being a wind-up speech.
From the outset, I have said that Labour wants to help build a consensus to convince the Government on the changes needed to make this legislation fit for purpose—that is, a new legal framework for this country when we have in future to commit our servicemen and women to conflict overseas. There has been a long-running problem, with baseless allegations and legal claims arising from Iraq and from Afghanistan under both Labour and Conservative Governments. But this Bill, as it stands, is not the solution.
The Public Bill Committee heard powerful evidence on a series of problems that our amendments on Report, and others on the amendment paper, are designed to fix. I want to stress the strength and depth of those criticisms. On investigations, the former Judge Advocate General, Geoff Blackett, said:
“The presumption against prosecution does not stop the investigation; the investigation happens.”—[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 127, Q275.]
The expert from Policy Exchange, Professor Richard Ekins, who originally published “Clearing the fog of war”, said:
“It certainly does not stop investigations. In fact, if one were to make a criticism of the Bill, one might say that it places no obstacle on continuing investigations”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 35, Q63.]
On criminal prosecutions, the former Commander Land Forces in the Army, General Sir Nick Carter, said:
“I do not understand why sexual acts have been excluded, but not murder and torture. I do not understand why that distinction has been made”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 96-97, Q196.]
The Judge Advocate General again, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) stressed, said of the Bill:
“What it actually does is increase the risk of service personnel appearing before the International Criminal Court.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 117-118, Q234.]
On civil claims, the former chairman of the British Armed Forces Federation said:
“Imposing an absolute time limit places armed forces personnel claimants themselves at a disadvantage compared with civil claimants in ordinary life”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 9, Q6.]
The director for the Centre for Military Justice said that
“it is quite extraordinary that part 2 will only benefit the Ministry of Defence, and the Ministry of Defence is the defendant in all those claims.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 57, Q108.]
The director-general of the Royal British Legion said of the Bill:
“I think it is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q163.]
When my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) pressed him—
“So it would breach the armed forces covenant, in your view?”—
he replied:
“That is what we think, yes.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 84, Q155.]
Our new clause 7 and our amendment 38 are designed to sit alongside the amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). The answer to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) about the number of investigations is this: only 27 prosecutions have arisen from Iraq and Afghanistan, yet 3,400 allegations were considered by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team and 670 from Operation Northmoor. Therefore, less than 1% of allegations were prosecuted.
The problem here is investigations. The serious, consistent problems lie in a system of investigation that has proved to be lacking in speed, in soundness, in openness, and  in a duty of care to alleged victims or to the troops involved. Those are all problems well before the point of decision about prosecution, which is the point at which the provisions of the Bill kick in.
That is a widely held criticism. It is a widely held conviction, one held by the Minister himself. Before he became a Minister last year, he declared that
“one of the biggest problems….was the military’s inability to investigate itself and the standard of those investigations…If those investigations were done properly…we probably would not be where we are today”.
He was right then; he is wrong now to resist using the Bill to correct those problems.
Another review, Minister? Look, there have been three reviews—and this one will be chaired by Richard Henriques—in the last five years. There are more than 80 recommendations on investigations that the Government could act on. For goodness’ sake, get on and do that! The amendments are in scope, workable and implementable. The Bill is an opportunity to fix long-standing problems. I hope the Government will start to see our proposals on investigations as being additional to what is in the Bill, not as a direct challenge.
Part 1 of the Bill restricts prosecutions of certain offences. The Bill’s purpose is to make it harder to prosecute British troops for some of the most serious crimes under the Geneva conventions. It does that by legislating for a presumption against prosecution after five years. Our new clause 4 deals with that presumption against prosecution; it replaces it with a requirement on the prosecutor, in coming to a decision, to take into account the passage of time, and whether it prejudices the prospect of a fair trial.
The Government say that sexual crimes, in all cases, are so serious that they will be excluded from this presumption, but they are placing crimes outlawed by the Geneva conventions—torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity—on a lower level, and downgrading our unequivocal British commitment to upholding international law. That poses the direct risk that the International Criminal Court will act to put British armed forces personnel on trial in The Hague if the UK justice system will not.
Let me dwell on that point. The contradiction that we are creating in the Bill is this: under clause 2, only exceptionally are proceedings defined in clause 1 to be brought, or continued, against a person. However, as the Red Cross has made clear,
“only in exceptional circumstances will the Prosecutor of the ICC conclude that an investigation or a prosecution may not serve the interests of justice.”
In other words, in the International Criminal Court, it is exceptional not to pursue a case; we are making it exceptional to pursue a case. That is the contradiction, the risk, and the jeopardy for our troops serving overseas in future.
If we adhere to the highest standards of legal military conduct, we can hold other countries to account when their forces fall short—a point made clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). If we do otherwise, it compromises our country’s proud reputation for upholding the rules-based international order that Britain has helped to construct since the days of Churchill and Attlee.
On civil claims, new clause 5 would amend part 2 of the Bill so that claims by troops or former service personnel were not blocked in all circumstances, as they  are under the Bill at present. It is simply wrong for those who put their life on the line serving Britain overseas to have less access to compensation and justice than the UK civilians whom they defend—or indeed than their comrades whose service is largely UK-based. There are already safeguards in the Limitations Act 1980, but part 2 penalises this group of people by applying to them a unique deviation from that Act. That clearly constitutes a disadvantage for those armed forces personnel, their families and veterans. It directly breaches the armed forces covenant, as the director general of the Royal British Legion has confirmed. Frankly, it beggars belief that Ministers are asking Members of this House to strip forces and their families of their right to justice—to penalise them, instead of protecting them. Our new clause 5 flatly rejects that.
On the duty of care and our new clause 6, one of the things that struck me most when talking to troops and their families who have been through the trauma of these long-running investigations is that they felt cut adrift from their chain of command and from the Ministry of Defence. We heard that clearly from Major Campbell, who gave such dramatic evidence to the Committee. When he was asked what support the MOD gave him, he simply replied, “there was none.” Of course, for veterans, it is even worse: for them, there is nothing, not even the chain of command, as Hilary Meredith, the specialist solicitor told the Committee. I have to say to the Minister that although some of the previous decisions—for instance, to cover the legal costs of those who were involved in the Iraq Historic Allegations Team investigation—were welcome, there is a higher standard to reach for us in this regard. I hope that, as we move the Bill into the Lords, he will use new clause 6 as a model so that we can establish a new duty of care standard providing legal, pastoral and mental health support to those who are put under pressure and under investigation or prosecution. I hope that he will do the same with our amendments on derogation and on the Attorney General’s veto. We need greater transparency. We need some role for Parliament in both those areas, and I know the Lords will be keen to look at that.
We have heard in this debate about cross-party amendments and concern. We hear a growing chorus of criticism, especially from groups or figures with long military or legal experience. It is not too late for Ministers to think again about the best way both to protect service personnel from vexatious litigation and to ensure that those who commit serious crimes on operations abroad are properly prosecuted and punished. Labour Members will continue to work to help forge a consensus on the changes needed to make this Bill into legislation that serves the best interests of British troops, British justice and British military standing in the world.

Johnny Mercer: I appreciate all the contributions made this afternoon, some of which were very thoughtful.
I know that Members get upset when I think that they are disingenuous, but the amount of misinformation that has come over today is quite extraordinary. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) just said that the Royal British Legion has said that this directly breaks—

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just accused my right  hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) of being disingenuous. Is that actually parliamentary?

Rosie Winterton: I am sure the Minister meant “unintentionally disingenuous”.

Johnny Mercer: It is quite extraordinary the way that individuals carry on in this House. That is precisely why I became a Member of Parliament—because quite frankly the military were sick and tired of some of the warm words that come out of this place when actually the actions are what matters.
I thank the Chairs of the Public Bill Committee and my fellow members of the Committee for their scrutiny of the Bill. As I said in Committee, we may not always agree, and that is to be expected, but I have listened to the views put forward, including those of Members who have spoken today. I hope that I will be able to address a number of the points raised and set out the Government’s position on the amendments chosen for debate.
On part 1 of the Bill, as I have said before, I fully recognise the importance of striking an appropriate balance between victims’ rights and access to justice. This has meant seeking to have a balance in the Bill. On the one hand, we are introducing protective measures that set a high threshold for a prosecutor to determine that a case should be prosecuted and ensuring that the adverse impacts of overseas operations would be given particular weight in favour of the service personnel or veterans. On the other hand, we must ensure that in circumstances where our service personnel fall short of the high standards of personal behaviour and conduct that is required, they can still be held to account. That is one of the reasons why we have not proposed an amnesty or a statute of limitations for service personnel and veterans as part of these measures—a claim again produced by Labour Members today. That is not true. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne can chunter from a sedentary position about what is in the Bill, but all that has been mentioned all afternoon is what is not in the Bill. It is literally a waste of everybody’s time. I see that Momentum has said this afternoon that we have forced Labour Front Benchers to vote against it. I was unaware that Momentum had any seats in the House of Commons, but clearly Labour Members are unable to think for themselves. However, that is a matter for them. We have also ensured that the measures are compliant with international law.
I recognise that alleged misconduct by service personnel is dealt with most effectively if individuals are investigated and, where appropriate, subject to disciplinary or criminal proceedings at the time of the conduct. Nobody should underestimate the often inordinate difficulty in delivering timely justice in relation to investigations of alleged historical offences. As we have heard in many oral evidence sessions, this can leave our service personnel with stress and mental strain for many years afterwards. There is a danger that if we fail to recognise that all the elements of the armed forces have come a long way from the beginning of the Iraq conflict, it looks like we are not continuing to learn and adjust. That is not true, which is why the Secretary of State has announced, in parallel with this Bill, a judge-led review of how allegations  of wrongdoing on overseas operations are raised and investigated. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne raises time and again the issue of the investigations, but he knows that they are for the forthcoming armed forces Bill and will be addressed there. That is why it might be unintentionally disingenuous to suggest that nothing is being done, Madam Deputy Speaker.
A number of amendments are proposed to clause 6 and schedule 1. A number seek to exclude torture offences from the presumption, and we know what this is; I should make it clear again that there is no requirement in customary international law for a state to prosecute a war crime or other breach of the Geneva convention in all circumstances where it has sufficient evidence of the offence, irrespective of this clause. We believe that the statutory presumption, which still allows the prosecutor to continue to take decisions to prosecute, is consistent with our international obligations.
Similarly, amendments 1 to 10 seek to ensure that the offences in section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in relation to torture, and the relevant sections of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 in relation to offences of torture, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, should be excluded offences in schedule 1. I am very much aware that many people have misinterpreted the decision to exclude only sexual offences from the presumption against prosecution, including by suggesting that it somehow undermines the UK’s continuing commitment to upholding international human rights law and humanitarian law, including the UN convention against torture. As Opposition Members well know, that is completely untrue. The UK does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture for any purposes, and we remain committed to maintaining our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Stewart McDonald: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Johnny Mercer: I think I have put up with enough this afternoon; I will not take any interventions.
The Bill does not decriminalise torture or war crimes, and it will not encourage or allow our service personnel to act with impunity. We will continue to take other offences such as war crimes and torture extremely seriously. The severity of the crime and the circumstances in which it was committed will always be factored into the prosecutor’s considerations. I have previously explained the Government’s decision to exclude only sexual offences from the Bill, and I am not going to say it again.
I wish to discuss new clause 5, which seeks to amend part 2 of the Bill so that it explicitly excludes actions brought against the Crown by current or former service personnel. None of the measures in part 2 of the Bill will prevent service personnel, veterans or their families from bringing claims against the MOD in connection with overseas operations within a reasonable timeframe, which most have done historically. To exclude, as Opposition Members would want to me to, claims from service personnel and veterans from part 2 of the Bill would amount to a difference in treatment between categories of claimants, including the civilian personnel who deploy alongside service personnel on overseas operations. That would not be justifiable and it would likely be discriminatory.  Therefore, in the interests of fairness to all claimants, claims from service personnel and veterans are not excluded. I am confident that these measures do not break the armed forces covenant. The new factors and limitation longstops apply to all claims in connection with overseas operations, and I have dealt with that point a number of times before.
I wish to say to colleagues that this House has a poor record on looking after those who serve. There comes a tangible moment, which the public can see and feel, when Members must cross the divide. In my experience, Members never tire in this place of warm words towards our armed forces or sombre reflections, particularly at this special time of year, as we run into remembrance weekend, but, as I said, there comes a moment, which the public can see and feel, when we must do better and match our words with action. This is that moment—one our predecessors have consistently failed, time and again, to seize. I am proud that this Government will move from warm words to actually dealing with how we look after those who have served. Gone are the days when this was an afterthought, and I pay tribute to this Prime Minister for his resolution to allow me to change this.
There are a lot of amendments that I am unable to speak to, but what I will say is that I have listened to all the contributions. I know that there is this kind of feeling that I do not listen and that I am not going to change the Bill. The reality is that I did not write the amendments—

Stewart McDonald: Will the Minister give way?

Johnny Mercer: No, I am not giving way—I have suffered enough. The House has suffered enough at the hands of the hon. Gentleman. I have listened to all the points about the amendments, but I did not ,write them. I wrote the Bill and the Bill as it stands deals with the problem that we are trying to fix, and hon. Members fully know that. Imagine my surprise—the Al-Sweady inquiry has been picked out by Opposition Members, but they would not believe who was the Minister at the time of the Al-Sweady inquiry: the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). If Members are really going to contribute honestly with a debate that they know the answers to, it has to be done with the sort of standards, values and ethos that we expect our people to adhere to.

Kevan Jones: Actually, it was the Minister of State who was dealing with the Al-Sweady inquiry. As I told the Minister in Committee, it was not the Labour party that set up the IHAT committee or Northmoor—it was his Government—so he should not start lecturing people when Members on the Government Benches at the time were calling for investigations.

Johnny Mercer: I appreciate the intervention, but the fact is that when the Al-Sweady inquiry took place, the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department. The claimants in the Al-Sweady case were supported by Leigh Day. Leigh Day gave £18,000 to the Labour party. This stuff is quite transparent ,and it is all on the record.
Look, at some point, hon. Members have to make a decision as to whether they are just going to speak very warm words, feel very strongly and think that our armed forces are the best of us, or actually do something that will change their lives, improve their lives, protect them from this new pernicious nature of lawfare and vote with the Government to get things done. I commend the Bill to the House.

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and others have tried to improve this Bill. The Minister is just not listening. He throws cheap shots. I am sorry, but I stand up for members of our armed forces and veterans. I do not need to get paid £85,000 a year, as he did as a Back Bencher, to support veterans. I do it for nothing because I believe in them, so do not give us lectures about people who take money to support veterans for their own pockets, rather than just supporting our veterans.
The problem is that the Bill has gone through Committee and today’s debate and it is not going to be amended. The Minister is not listening at all. He said that actions are what matter. Yes, they do, because what we are going to have is a Bill passed here tonight that does not address the main issue, which is investigations, because the Minister will just not accept it. Part 2 means that veterans and members of the armed forces will have fewer rights than anybody in this House—fewer rights than prisoners—and he cannot say, in the lead-up to Remembrance Sunday, that taking fundamental rights away from members of our armed forces is right. But that is exactly what he is—

Johnny Mercer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevan Jones: No, I am not going to take an intervention. I am sorry; the Minister, both in Committee and tonight, is one thing if one thing only—consistent. He sits there, chunters from a sedentary position, never takes interventions, reads his civil service brief and will just not listen to anyone because he thinks he is right. I am sorry; he is wrong on this.
I will not press my new clauses and amendments to a vote, but I will end with this point. The Bill is flawed. It could have been improved in Committee and it could be improved here tonight. It will not be, because the Minister stubbornly refuses to accept it. He will then use the parliamentary majority in this House to ram it through. This Bill will do nothing to protect veterans. They will still be investigated. They will still be prosecuted, possibly before the International Criminal Court, and their basic rights, which we should all have under section 33 of the Limitation Act, will be taken away from them. That is shameful.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 23 September).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 5 - RESTRICTIONS ON TIME LIMITS: ACTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST THE CROWN BY SERVICE PERSONNEL

Nothing in this Part applies to any action brought against the Crown by a person who is a member or former member of the regular or reserve forces, or of a British overseas territory force to whom section 369(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (persons subject to service law) applies.—(John Healey.)
This new clause amends Part 2 of the Bill so that it explicitly excludes actions brought against the Crown by serving or former service personnel from the limitations on courts’ discretion that the Part imposes in respect of actions relating to overseas operations.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 336.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Clause 6 - “Relevant offence”

Amendment proposed: 32,page4,line13, at end insert—
‘(3A) A service offence is not a “relevant offence” if it is an offence whose prosecution is required under the United Kingdom’s international treaty obligations.’.—(Stewart Malcolm McDonald.)
This amendment would exclude the prosecution of serious international crimes (such as torture, genocide, crimes against humanity, and certain war crimes) from the limitations otherwise imposed by the Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 335.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Schedule 1 - Excluded offences for the purposes of section 6

Amendment proposed: 1,page12,line6, at end insert—
“(13A) An offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (torture).”—(Mr David Davis.)
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 334.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Third Reading

Ben Wallace: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
First, I acknowledge the hard work that has got us to this point today and the thousands who responded to our public consultation and shaped the measures in the Bill, as well as the legal and legislative experts who have ensured that it provides measured and calibrated protections. I thank Members from all parties who have participated in debating the Bill’s merits, including in Committee. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans. His passion and determination to do the right thing by personnel and veterans is genuine and his commitment to his cause is unwavering. Such central determination and duty should be a lesson to us all.
The Bill is more than just a manifesto commitment; it is a necessary and overdue strengthening of the legal framework for dealing with the vexatious claims and repeated investigations that have arisen from recent overseas military operations. There have been many inaccurate and wild accusations about the measures in the Bill. It does not prevent armed forces personnel from being prosecuted for crimes they may have committed. It does not remove prosecutors’ independence or ability to prosecute on the basis of any new or compelling evidence of any crime at any time. It does not undermine the UK’s adherence to the UN convention against torture, its commitment to international law or its willingness to investigate and prosecute any alleged criminal offences. As such, it does not increase the likelihood of International Criminal Court prosecutions.
But do not take my word for it; take the words of the former Attorney General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin QC, probably the lawyer most experienced in dealing with legacy military and security investigations across the United Kingdom, who said in a paper published this September that
“the Bill does not create, or come close to creating, ‘de facto immunity’ for serving or former service personnel in respect of serious crimes.”
However, the Bill does raise the threshold for prosecution, thereby reducing the likelihood of investigations being repeatedly reopened without new and compelling evidence. It does ensure recognition of the unique circumstances of overseas operations, including the constant threat to life and repeated exposure to traumatic events. It does take into consideration the public interest in criminal and civil cases’ being brought to a timely resolution, so that the courts can assess them while memories are fresh and evidence is more readily available. That is entirely in line with the principles of the ECHR. In short, the measures do provide greater protection from the likes of Phil Shiner Solicitors, whose motivations were not justice but money.
It is the right thing to do to defend the men and women who risk their lives to protect us. It is for all these reasons that the House should support the Bill’s Third Reading. But it is just one piece in the jigsaw to fix this issue. Let us not forget that the overwhelming number of these incidents that triggered the pursuit of veterans happened under Labour’s stewardship of defence. They failed to keep training compliance with the ECHR. They failed to equip personnel properly. They failed to reform the service justice system to ensure that they were ECHR-article 2-compliant, including the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who was a Minister in that Ministry at that time, so it is a bit rich—

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Ben Wallace: No, I will not. It is a bit rich for them to come here today and condemn the legislation. On the other hand, it is we who have commissioned—

Kevan Jones: rose—

Ben Wallace: The hon. Gentleman has had plenty to say on the Bill; I will not give way. We do not have time to conclude these exchanges. On the other hand—[Interruption.] They can shout me down, but I will just continue to use up Third Reading time, and I will then listen to other speeches. I will not give way; I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman.

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has now added mind-reading to his many skills. The Minister, who is actually a good friend of mine, has just made an accusation against me and has not given me the right to reply to it. It was his Government, in 2010, who set up IHAT and Northmoor, not the Labour Government.

Rosie Winterton: I do not want the point of order to become a subject of debate, but obviously—[Interruption.] Thank you; I can cope. Obviously, the Secretary of State has referred to the right hon. Gentleman, and he may feel it appropriate to give way.

Ben Wallace: It is a shame that the right hon. Gentleman used up more debating time by raising a bogus point of order, but nevertheless, in case Opposition Members think the way to conduct a Third Reading is to shout people down, I will repeat that this legislation is one very important part of the jigsaw. We must not forget, given the point raised by the Opposition about the thoroughness of the investigations, that it was not under their stewardship that the investigative capability of our armed forces was strengthened; it was not under their stewardship that the training for men and women about detention of suspects was improved; it was not under Labour’s stewardship that article 2 compliance was met, often, on some of these investigations that allowed those lawyers to come back and repeat inquests, inquiries and investigations into our veterans.
On the other hand, it is we, a Conservative Government, who have commissioned and started implementing a service justice review programme, who appointed a respected former judge to review and scrutinise the investigative process, and who have brought legislation to actually do something about it.
The Government have listened to many of the contributions throughout the Bill’s progress, but we have been unable to accept the amendments because they would have undermined rather than strengthened the Bill. In the case of the Opposition, they are simply, as it turned out, opposed to its aims, as Momentum has boasted today.
Despite all the warm words and sympathy, the Labour leopard has not changed its spots. In this week of all weeks, with Remembrance Sunday approaching, veterans up and down the country will note Labour’s opposition and recognise what fair-weather friends they are. However, this Government have been determined and resolute in acting to protect our armed forces, and that is why I commend the Bill to the House.

John Healey: We all want the same thing—Labour, the Government, the public, the armed forces: we all want to protect British troops and British values, and that should not be a matter of party politics. It is simply wrong to make debate on the Bill divisive, or to brand those who challenge Ministers on the content of the Bill as somehow standing against British troops.
This is a Bill to deal with long-running problems that have arisen under successive Governments—Labour and Conservative—and the Minister in charge was right when he just said that we must do better, but we can do much better than this Bill as it stands. We want this to be a Bill that protects British troops and their right to justice and a Bill that protects Britain’s reputation as a force for good in the world, upholding universal human rights and a rules-based international order.
In truth, the closer people look at this legislation, the less they like it. Two things have become clear since Second Reading. First, this is a dishonest and damaging Bill that does not do what it says on the tin. It entirely fails to deal with the main problem, which is baseless and repeated investigations and, worse, it breaches the armed forces covenant, it risks British troops being dragged before the International Criminal Court, and it does more to protect the MOD that it does our armed forces personnel. Secondly, despite a growing cross-party concern and chorus of criticism, especially from those with military experience or connections, Ministers are in denial about the flaws in this Bill. With the arrogance of an 80-seat majority, they dismiss those who argue for amendment as disingenuous.
This demands a signal of how serious we see these flaws as being, which is why we will vote against Third Reading. We want our troops to be better protected. We want our British military to be held in the highest regard around the world. We want our British justice system to set standards that others follow. It is because we passionately believe in these values that we cannot accept this Bill as it stands.

Stewart McDonald: I also thank the Clerks and the staff of the House who have worked on the Bill and the Library staff who have worked hard to ensure that Members are briefed properly. I want to mention Clorinda Luck, our own researcher, who has put a lot of work into this as well.
I echo much of what the shadow Secretary of State has said. We all wanted to solve the Phil Shiner problem. I do not think that any of us wants to see Phil Shiner mark 2, but this was not the way to do it. The Minister, with whom I enjoy these exchanges, has let himself down. He could have had a chance, as he said he wanted on Second Reading, to bring together all the Members of the House who wanted to solve the problem, and he did not accept one single amendment. On arithmetic, he might win this evening, but his powers of persuasion and politics clearly need a lot more polishing than he thinks. When this legislation comes forward on investigations next year, I hope that he will look back at the Hansard of this debate and at how he conducted the passage of the Bill and do it differently next time. He has good will in the House that I fear he has squandered irreparably, especially in the passage tonight. This Bill   does not protect the armed forces; it risks them being dragged in front of the ICC. If he is happy with that as his legacy, that is for him to resolve, but it is not something that we can support. For that reason, we will be against the Bill in the Lobby tonight.

Kevan Jones: May I too thank the Bill Committee Clerks, who worked very hard? I congratulate the Minister for Defence People and Veterans on his excellent reading of his briefs in Committee and today.
This is sad, because the Bill is fatally flawed. It will take rights away from veterans, which cannot be right, and it will lead to our international reputation being at stake. It does not solve the problem, which is investigations. That could have been put right in the Bill, but unfortunately, the Minister is not prepared to listen. He says that he is prepared to work with people; the exact opposite has been the truth throughout the passage of the Bill.
As for the Secretary of State trying to blame all this on a wicked Labour Government, it was a Labour Government who met the armed forces pay review every year and ensured that defence expenditure kept pace with inflation. It was his Government who, in coalition, put IHAT and Northmoor in place in 2010. When these cases were going on when I was a Minister, it was Conservative Members who were asking why we were not investigating them more. There is selective memory on the Government Benches. We had an opportunity to get a good Bill that would address the issues and improve the situation for veterans, and that has been missed because of the arrogance of the Minister who has led it through the House.
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 23 September).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House divided: Ayes 345, Noes 260.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

That the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 5 October, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

That the draft Agriculture (Payments) (Amendment, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 5 October, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Food)

That the draft Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 29 September, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Criminal Law)

That the draft Taking Account of Convictions (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 24 September, be approved.

Armorial Bearings, Ensigns and Flags

That the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 23 September, be approved.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.

Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)

Ordered,
That:
(1) the Resolution of the House of 16 January 2020 (Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)), as amended by the Orders of the House of 25 March, 22 April, 12 May, 10 June and 1 July 2020 (Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)), is further amended as follows:
leave out “6 November 2020, 13 November 2020, 27 November 2020, 15 January 2021, 29 January 2021, 5 February 2021,” and insert “8 January 2021, 15 January 2021, 22 January 2021, 29 January 2021, 5 February 2021, 26 February 2021,”
(2) the Orders for Second Reading of Bills on each of the days listed under Day 1 in the table below are read and discharged;
(3) each such Bill is ordered to be read a second time on the corresponding day listed under Day 2 in the table; and
(4) those Bills are set down to be read a second time on the appropriate Day 2 in the order in which they were set down to be read a second time on the corresponding Day 1.

  

  Day 1
  Day 2


  6 November 2020
  8 January 2021


  13 November 2020
  15 January 2021


  27 November 2020
  22 January 2021


  15 January 2021
  29 January 2021


  29 January 2021
  5 February 2021


  5 February 2021
  26 February 2021

  

—(James Morris.)

Proxy Voting During the Pandemic

Ordered,
That, with effect until 30 March 2021, the following amendments be made to Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by Proxy):
(1) in paragraph (2) leave out “by reason of absence from the precincts of the House”;
(2) in paragraph (3)
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), leave out “and”; and
(b) leave out sub-paragraph (b);
(3) after paragraph (3) insert:
() No Member who holds a proxy vote may participate in person in a division in the House, including a deferred division;
(4) leave out sub-paragraph (4)(a); and
(5) in paragraph (7), leave out “by reason of absence from the precincts of the House”.—(James Morris.)

Eleanor Laing: I remind hon. Members of the Speaker’s statement earlier that he will introduce the new proxy voting with effect from tomorrow, including hon. Members who make their designation before 9.30 am tomorrow. That is to remind hon. Members that, if they wish to have a proxy vote tomorrow, they must make that designation before 9.30 am tomorrow. To apply for a proxy, Members must email proxyvote@parliament.uk with the name of their nominated proxy.

Procedure Committee

Ordered,
That Rob Roberts be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Aaron Bell be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Eleanor Laing: I must remind hon. Members that the presentation of a petition in the House is not an occasion for a speech. The presentation of a petition involves words taking approximately one minute.

Petition - Restoration of Hammersmith Bridge

Sarah Olney: I present this petition, on behalf of the residents of the constituency of Richmond Park, for the restoration of Hammersmith Bridge. This has been discussed on a number of occasions in this House already, so many Members will be aware that it has been closed to motor traffic since last April, and entirely to cyclists and walkers from August this year. I present the petition, on behalf of my residents, that every effort should be made to urgently get the bridge back up and running as soon as possible.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Richmond Park,
Declares that Hammersmith Bridge is an essential transport route for South West London and its closure to walkers, cyclists and boats since 13 August has caused major problems for residents; notes that its closure has caused journeys for school children that used to be a 10 minute walk, now take 90 minutes across unsafe tow paths; further declares that elderly and disabled residents are now having to pay upwards of £40 in taxi fares to access vital services in Hammersmith; further declares that there has been a damaging  effect on business owners who relied on footfall across the bridge; further declares that redirected transport has created traffic jams and increased pollution; further declares that people are now cut off from hospitals, schools and work; and further declares that the Transport Minister said he would fund repairs to the bridge before the election however the cracks in the bridge have only worsened. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and support the Council to build a temporary walking and cycling bridge so people can cross the river; and take action to restore the Hammersmith Bridge with urgency.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002620]

Fleur Anderson: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Putney regarding the restoration of Hammersmith bridge, alongside an online petition on the same topic, which has been signed by nearly 1,200 people. Hammersmith bridge is a major national heritage site and an important London transport route. It has major cracks and is closed even for boats underneath. Hammersmith and Fulham Council and Transport for London have put in millions of pounds for the restoration, but what is needed is the Transport Minister to step up and fund the restoration of the bridge. The taskforce has been meeting for six weeks, but without agreeing funding—so little task and no force. The residents of Putney, Roehampton and Southfields petition the Government to urgently pay to restore Hammersmith bridge.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[To the House of Commons.
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Hammersmith Bridge is an essential transport route for South West London and its closure to walkers, cyclists and boats since 13 August has caused major problems for residents; notes that its closure has caused bus journeys to Roehampton to take up to an hour extra and led to thousands of additional vehicles using Putney High Street; further declares that redirected transport has created traffic jams and increased pollution; further declares that people are now cut off from hospitals, schools and work; and further declares that the Transport Minister said he would fund repairs to the bridge before the election however the cracks in the bridge have only worsened.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and support the Council to build a temporary walking and cycling bridge so people can cross the river; and take action to restore the Hammersmith Bridge with urgency.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002621]

Petition - Bank closures in North Ayrshire

Patricia Gibson: I rise to present a petition on bank closures in North Ayrshire.
The petition states:
The petition of the constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran,
Declares that there is an urgent need to tackle the exodus of high street banks from North Ayrshire; expresses extreme concern  about the recent decision by TSB Bank to close its branches in Kilbirnie, Largs and Saltcoats; notes that seven of the ten towns in the constituency of North Ayrshire & Arran – namely West Kilbride, Dalry, Ardrossan, Stevenston, Beith, and now Kilbirnie are now without any high street bank, making it one of the worst hit constituencies in the UK for bank branch closures; declares that many high street businesses are adversely impacted by bank branch closures, as they face increased insurance costs without local access to night safes to deposit cash at the end of the business day; further declares that local communities, particularly elderly and disabled residents who are more likely to face digital exclusion, will suffer because of these decisions which increasingly force consumers to bank online; and further expresses deep disappointment that customers feel they have no choice but to accept online banking, however reluctantly or endure lengthy journeys in order to effectively manage their money.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the UK Government to work in partnership with the banking industry to deliver banking hubs for communities to ensure financial inclusion for all.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002618]

Petition - Support for the wedding industry

David Linden: I will try to be a wee bit briefer this time, Madam Deputy Speaker. This petition focuses specifically on the wedding and events industry, which has been decimated by lockdown regulations and given no sector support. One such example is DollyBird Stationery in my constituency, run by Dawn Marie Feeney, which produces high-quality wedding stationery. Dawn’s order book is incredibly strong for future years, but what is needed is more support in the short term.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward immediate additional measures to support the wider wedding industry, including hospitality venues, outfitters, suppliers, the entertainment industry… And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Glasgow East,
Declares that the economic consequences of the Coronavirus pandemic have had a devastating effect on the wider wedding industry; further declares that this impact is felt across hospitality venues, catering suppliers, outfitters, bands and DJs, limousine and tax hire companies, coach companies, and photographers; further declares that many of these groups now have no income or support; further declares that these are all viable businesses when restrictions are lifted and full weddings can take place; and further declares that many people have been personally disappointed by the lost opportunity to marry their loved ones in the setting they dreamed of, further that many people hope that they have their maximum choice available post covid-19 pandemic.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward immediate additional measures to support the wider wedding industry, including hospitality venues, outfitters, suppliers, the entertainment industry, photographers, vehicle hire companies and coach hire companies.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002619]

Housing: North Somerset

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

Liam Fox: I am very grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of housing and house building numbers for North Somerset. I will make some comments about the general situation, how we got to this point and elements that affect my constituency. Then, with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) will add some comments about the situation in his constituency.
North Somerset, as it is now, had a population in 1971 of 139,924 residents. By 2018, that had increased to 213,919. We have seen an increase of more than 50% in our population since the 1970s. That has naturally been accompanied by a huge amount of house building in my constituency. That has particularly been around Nailsea and Backwell. There has been huge development and growth in Clevedon and, most recently, the development in Portishead, one of the most successful developments of a brownfield site anywhere in the country. Of course, Weston-super-Mare has seen its own dramatic growth in that time, which my hon. Friend will come to.
Our current adopted requirement for housing is 20,995 dwellings for the period 2006 to 2026, which is 1,049 per year, but—this is where reality breaks in—developers have not delivered anything like those numbers in that period. In fact, despite a large number of sites with full planning consent, only 808 dwellings on average have been produced per year in that period. Only in one year, 2007, did we exceed the target, and that was at the height of growth in Portishead.
I now come to the projected numbers. The previous joint spatial plan gave North Somerset a new target of 25,000 new homes over 20 years, which means 1,250 per year. Under the new methodology, however, with a target of 300,000 new homes per year nationally for each year of this Parliament, that has risen again to 1,365 dwellings per year.
That was already beyond the realms of what we believed possible, but to take us well into “Alice in Wonderland” territory, the Government’s new algorithm in the plan to get us to 370,000 homes nationally per year takes it to 1,708 dwellings per year for North Somerset, which is 25,620 over a 15-year period. That is more than twice as many as the market has delivered on average in that period. So we have these fantasy numbers that come from the socialist planning edict, rather than what the market has delivered for us.
The question is, where will those houses actually go?  I am aware of the strictures about not using props, but I will explain to the Minister the little gift that I intend to give him at the end of this debate, which will show him a map of North Somerset plus green belt. By the time we add on the flood plain, areas of outstanding natural beauty, aerodrome safeguarded zones and the conservation areas, he might like to show me on the map where the 26,000 homes will go.
I could encourage the Minister to improve his colouring-in skills, but there is nothing to colour in on a map where everything is already completely used up.  Perhaps we will see the Shard built on Yatton high street; perhaps Churchill will have its new skyscrapers. It simply is not credible to apply those housing numbers to North Somerset.
We are not NIMBYs. As I have said, there has been a 50% increase in the number of our residents, and therefore housing, over the period, but we need to safeguard the quality of life for those who already live there. The infrastructure in our area is creaking in terms of the number of schools and the GP services that we have. Our policing is overstretched and our roads leave a great deal to be desired.
In Wrington, one of the villages in the green belt where there has been some development, we have already seen problems with flooding and drainage that were entirely predicted; I raised the issue with the district council at the time. Road traffic access is a nightmare in a village where the infrastructure had already been degraded. In Portishead, our schools are already full. Yatton is used as the emergency route when there is a closure to the M5, which is a joke, because at the best of times it is effectively a single lane road through a small village.
In Clevedon, there is an attempt to use our last bit of green belt in Cleveland East to build an overflow school. Long Ashton and Dundry in particular have the nightmare prospect of a huge housing estate being planned that will effectively take the urban sprawl from Bristol into North Somerset. The whole point of the green belt there is to stop urban sprawl and to stop Bristol moving south into North Somerset. We utterly reject the idea of some of those lovely villages having huge housing estates, which would be an eyesore as well as a burden on the local authority.
The Government have said that they want to increase the infrastructure budget, particularly in the north of England. I am absolutely, fully committed to that; it makes perfect sense to spread opportunity to all parts of the country. But if that is where the infrastructure spending is going to go, why are we increasing the housing supply in the south of England, where we are not getting the investment in the infrastructure? That applies not only to our constituencies in north Somerset but to many of the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who took the opportunity in the Lobby tonight to say, “Speak for us when you are having your Adjournment debate.” We need to have house building commensurate with investment in the infrastructure. We cannot have the mismatch that we seem to be developing at the present time.
So what do we want to see in North Somerset? We need to develop brownfield sites, particularly in Bristol. The idea that there are cost issues should not be allowed to get in the way of building on the most appropriate sites where they are closest to the city environment with all the infrastructure that already exists there. We need to look, particularly in the post-covid environment, at change of use from offices and shops to more dwellings, bringing people back into our town centres and improving the life of our communities there. We want to get rid of North Somerset’s obligation to make up for unmet need in Bristol. Why should the residents of North Somerset have to pay the price, in terms of pressure on their infrastructure, for the failure of the authorities in Bristol to meet their own housing needs, especially given that there are brownfield sites yet to be built on?
We need to have—this is a more generic issue than just what we face in North Somerset—a methodology that is realistic. We need to have a clear link to local demographics, not some made-up numbers that are simply applied irrespective of the real conditions in our population. We must have a fact-based assessment of need in our constituencies. We must have a sensible view of the constraints already in place, including all the issues that I mentioned, including the fact that we have such a large amount of green belt, and the fact that we have the north Somerset levels, with some of the areas that would otherwise be used for planning being on floodplain. The clue to the impact on those areas is in the term “flood”, which is why we do not expect to see building there. We need to have to have the right type of housing. We want to see more affordable housing so that young people who grow up in North Somerset are not forced to leave and come back only when they have attained a much higher income later on in their life. We have a mismatch with our demographics. We need more young people to be able to stay and live where they grew up. We have to see housing targets and the type of house building that are in line with our environmental targets.
I believe that the Government fully understand the need for more house building across the United Kingdom, but we have already seen our share of development in our part of the country. We are constrained by the very elements that the Government themselves set down. We cannot build on green belt. We cannot build on floodplain. It is an accident of nature that we have the north Somerset levels. We cannot build in the protected areas: in areas of outstanding natural beauty or conservation areas. I invite my right hon. Friend the Minister, for some amusement over the weekend, to take back the map of North Somerset that shows all these elements included, and show me where 26,000 houses are meant to go.

John Penrose: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), my parliamentary neighbour, on securing this debate and on making the case so eloquently and forcefully not just on behalf of his own constituents but on behalf of my constituents—and, as he rightly pointed out, given the various comments that we have both been getting in the Lobby during the votes just now, on behalf of a great deal more constituencies right the way across the country.
I want to pick up on a couple of the points that my right hon. Friend made—very briefly, because I want to leave time for the Housing Minister to respond. He is absolutely right to say that North Somerset as a whole has absorbed a huge amount of housing over the past 50 years. We cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as NIMBYs. We have taken an enormous numbers of houses. We are happy to take more if they are in the right places, because, as he rightly points out, there are very many local residents who want their children to be able to afford to live locally—who do not want them to be forced to move away and come back only when they have made their fortunes, if they can. That is clearly not the right way to do it, and it is clearly not the right way to have sustainable and balanced communities either, so therefore we want to be able to  have enough houses for this to be affordable. Both my right hon. Friend and I, and many local residents, agree with the notion that, as a country, we have to build more houses, but the question is where we build them and why the existing system is forcing people to build in the wrong places and in the wrong ways.
My right hon. Friend is also right to point out that if we stick with the current approach, we stand absolutely no chance of delivering on the number of houses that are required. That is not because there are not enough places with planning permission or because there are not enough permitted areas where planning permission has already been agreed, but simply because the existing housebuilders have a business model which requires them to dribble out houses consistently over many years at no more than a pre-set rate—about 800 every year in our areas—in order to avoid deflating the cost of housing by building too fast and ruining their investments. So, if we do not change something soon, we will never get to the numbers that the Minister is rightly setting for the entire country.
Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider that Weston-super-Mare, perhaps some of the areas in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, and certainly central Bristol should be willing to take more homes in the middle of towns, rather than in the areas, which, as my right hon. Friend rightly pointed out in his nicely coloured-in map, are not available to be built on outside towns. Central Weston needs the investment; central Weston would be delighted to have more homes built in the right places. That points to one of the advantages of the Government’s latest set of proposals for permitted development rights with carefully constructed local council-approved planning guidelines.

Matt Western: I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on securing this Adjournment debate. Does the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) agree that one of the issues about density of dwelling in planning, and one of the issues with the White Paper proposals, is that we will have less control over what sort of densities would get built out by the developers?

John Penrose: Actually, I respectfully disagree with that last point, because local authorities will be able to set development codes, which will be able to dictate the level of density, and they can also dictate the look and feel of the areas. As a result, places like central Weston and central Bristol, where development is, on average two storeys tall, could easily—and in the case of central Weston, would gladly—absorb more homes if we were able to go up to four storeys tall. We are not proposing to emulate the Shard, as my right hon. Friend rightly points out, because that would be completely inappropriate, but we want to go up to four storeys, or maybe five at the outside. We want to build elegant townhouses and mews houses; the sort of things that we are proud to look at in parts of Weston already, and certainly in parts of central Bristol and parts of Bath. Such beautiful bits of architecture—more dense, but beautifully put together—could absorb all the homes if we were only able to do it. But the current system—the current method of allocating those homes—does not allow us to do it, because local authorities do not get credit if they start to allocate building in those areas.

Liam Fox: Will my hon. Friend accept that his argument is further strengthened by the fact that the housing density in many of our cities in the United Kingdom is well below the level of housing density that is taken for granted in most cities in Europe?

John Penrose: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and if we do it this way round we are using the existing infrastructure, rather than overburdening the already stretched infrastructure in our rural areas. It is greener, too, because people can live closer to work. If we start building yet more in rural villages—in my case, places like Churchill or Langford or Congresbury—we just create commuter towns and villages, and we add to the level of the commuting carbon footprint as a result. If people can live near where they work—which is much more covid-friendly as well—we stand a chance of creating greener, more sustainable communities, and ones where investment is desired. However, that does require the Government to change the process—to change the way they give credit for the sites that are thus created. That would ensure that the big volume builders, whose whole business plan is based around building on greenfield sites, do not get the only view of the situation, and town and city centre development becomes a route for councils to satisfy the housing numbers they are required to build.

Christopher Pincher: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on securing this debate and on his, as ever, eloquent contribution. I am always keen to hear his views. I am also keen and happy to look at his maths, and happy to discuss what the colouring of the maps might be. I am grateful for the insights that he has given to us. The issue of housing, including housing numbers, is of great importance to many Members across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who also spoke with great prescience and insight, and I am happy to discuss his ideas at some future point.
I think we would all agree that, to achieve the aims of our manifesto commitment of building 300,000 new homes a year by the mid-2020s, we need to find the right balance, which is ambitious in its vision for the future of our planning system and house building, and fair. That is why we recently set out our long-term vision in our planning White Paper, “Planning for the future”, the consultation on which closed last week.
We believe that the proposals will create a reformed system that not only delivers the houses that we need, but puts communities at the heart of a process that encourages more community engagement from the very beginning, so that people play a fuller part in the proactive place-making of their environment. Right now, something like 2% of local populations take an active role in individual planning applications. That percentage can fall as low as 1% in the development of local plans.
The proposals will also encourage fairer contributions from developers—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset—with a new infrastructure levy to fund critical infrastructure and affordable housing. The proposals will contribute to more beautiful homes and communities through local design codes, as mentioned  by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, with pattern book approaches. They will also deliver stronger environmental outcomes, protecting our green belt and our precious green spaces.
At the same time as we launched the planning White Paper, we set out our proposals for the shorter term in our consultation on changes to the current planning system and local housing need calculation. As I said in the Backbench Business debate on the issue a couple of weeks ago, however, some of the numbers we have seen bandied around from the Commons Library or the Lichfields assessment are entirely speculative.
The consultation on the local housing need methodology closed on 1 October, and we are working through the feedback from it. I have heard today, in the Backbench Business debate and in discussions with right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber, concerns that have been expressed about the proposed changes, in particular some areas that might see increased levels that they will find difficult to plan for.
We have tried to approach the process fairly, based on evidence, because the evidence shows that for too many people homes are simply unaffordable. That is why I should be clear that both the current and the proposed standard method have a focus on affordability, because it cannot be right that in areas where, historically, supply has simply not kept up with demand, people are prevented from living where they most want to, or where they most need to, in the places that perhaps they call home.
Indeed, it is a question of intergenerational fairness. We need to build more homes to help young people on to the housing ladder and also help some of the most vulnerable people in society—some of our elderly. We must consider the question of affordability. However, as I said, I have heard hon. Members, most recently my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, who are concerned about the effect that this might have on the geographical balance of our country—that there may be too many homes in the south and not enough in the north.
That is why we are looking at other levers, such as stock renewal—regeneration of places—where it is required, generally in the industrial west midlands and the industrial north. We are looking at all-important city regeneration, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare. We are committed, in the national planning policy framework and in our consultation proposals, to further brownfield development, and we are committed to reimagining our town and city centres.
That is why we have introduced permitted development rights statutory instruments that allow for the demolition and rebuilding of commercial property to make it easier to turn that into residential property. We have introduced changes to use classification to make it easier for town centres to accommodate more residential accommodation so that they can once again become the places they used to be before, perhaps, the 1970s and the 1960s—places where people live as well as work.
I am in no doubt that achieving the right balance is critical. We need to challenge the affordability issues that bedevil so many people in our country and the places that they want to live.

Matt Western: Will the Minister give way?

Christopher Pincher: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I am sure he wants to raise a point about North Somerset.

Matt Western: The Minister is very generous. I want to concentrate on that point about affordability. In his vision, does he see that there is a role for council house or council flat building? Surely, as the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) illustrated about his area—I am sure it is true across the country—truly affordable accommodation must be delivered through council house building as well.

Christopher Pincher: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made it easier for councils to build council houses. He will know that, through the affordable homes programme that the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in September, over the next five years we will inject £12.2 billion into house building. We will build 180,000 new homes in our country, about 50% of which will be affordable and for social rent. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, and I am pleased to have been able to make the point to him that we are building those affordable homes where they are necessary.
That is why we are looking at housing need now, considering carefully how each element of the formula that I described works together so that we can ensure that we achieve the right distribution of homes in the most appropriate places and address any perceived imbalances. We have consulted, as I said, on each element of the indicative formula, and we are reflecting carefully on the feedback we have received.

Liam Fox: May I take my right hon. Friend back to what the market has actually delivered over time? Does he accept that if councils are given targets for housing that are utterly unrealistic in relation to the numbers that have been built over time, the Government are likely to miss their own house building target, because houses will not be built in those areas to the extent that the Government would like, and that the process can be self-defeating if the correct balance is not achieved?

Christopher Pincher: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. That is why I said that we are looking very closely at the consultation feedback that we have received. As part of the consultation on the “Planning for the future” White Paper, we have asked providers of feedback to consider how we can improve the duty to co-operate between local authorities so that we get the right sorts of homes spread over the regions of our country. We  know that political geography does not always map easily on to economic or physical geography, so I recognise what my right hon. Friend says.
I will make a couple more points before the fickle finger of time points us towards the door of the Chamber. My right hon. Friend raised the issue of infrastructure. We recognise that the present system of infrastructure levy does not work. We have heard that 80% of local authorities think that the system of section 106 contributions is too slow, and negotiations between councils and developers cannot be relied on fully to provide what communities truly need, when they need it. That is why, in the White Paper, we have proposed a more widely set infrastructure levy. That will simplify the system and ensure fairer contributions from developers.
Crucially, we want to ensure that the levy provides funds up front for the required infrastructure—the schools, roads, clinics and playgrounds that local people expect to see if new, good-quality, sustainable homes are being built around them. We are consulting on whether the levy should be set nationally, or locally or regionally to take account of regional economies.
My right hon. Friend raised the question of build-out and land-banking. He will know that Sir Oliver Letwin produced a report on build-out a couple of years ago. He found no evidence of speculative land-banking, but we all recognise that developers do not always build out at the pace that we would like. Our proposals will help to achieve that speedier build-out, but I look forward to considering the ideas in the consultation, so that we can better incentivise developers to build out.
My right hon. Friend referred to flooding. He will know that we are considering carefully whether we need to make further changes to the national planning policy framework to protect areas at risk of flooding from unnecessary and inappropriate building. We should not lose sight of the Government’s successes over the past 10 years. There have been half a million additional new homes since 2010, and 240,000 of those were built in England last year alone. We can be proud of that.
I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate. We need to get this right, and that depends on what we build, and where we build. I look forward to reading the many contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare to the two consultations that have just concluded, and look forward to further debates on this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ali, Tahir (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Allin-Khan, Dr Rosena (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West ) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey( (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow)
  Chris Elmore


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Caroline Nokes


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Dawn Butler


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Jeremy Hunt


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover)
  Maria Caulfield


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Jonathan Edwards


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Bim Afolami


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Craig Mackinlay


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Caroline Nokes


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Steve Baker


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Julie Marson


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Neil Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Fay Jones


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Maria Caulfield


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Judith Cummins


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Kate Osborne


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Lloyd Russell-Moyle


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Kate Osborne


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Patrick Grady


  Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Jarrow)
  Nadia Whittome


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Peter Aldous


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Mike Freer


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Robert Courts


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Dawn Butler


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore